The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for January, 2021 was +0.12 deg. C, down a little from the December, 2020 value of +0.15 deg. C. NOTE: We have changed the 30-year averaging period from which we compute anomalies to 1991-2020, from the old period 1981-2010. This change does not affect the temperature trends.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 13 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2020 01 0.42 0.44 0.41 0.52 0.57 -0.22 0.41
2020 02 0.59 0.74 0.45 0.63 0.17 -0.27 0.20
2020 03 0.35 0.42 0.28 0.53 0.81 -0.96 -0.04
2020 04 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.35 -0.70 0.63 0.78
2020 05 0.42 0.43 0.41 0.53 0.07 0.83 -0.20
2020 06 0.30 0.29 0.30 0.31 0.26 0.54 0.97
2020 07 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.28 0.44 0.26 0.26
2020 08 0.30 0.34 0.26 0.45 0.35 0.30 0.25
2020 09 0.40 0.41 0.39 0.29 0.69 0.24 0.64
2020 10 0.38 0.53 0.22 0.24 0.86 0.94 -0.01
2020 11 0.40 0.52 0.27 0.17 1.45 1.09 1.28
2020 12 0.15 0.08 0.22 -0.07 0.29 0.43 0.13
2021 01 0.12 0.34 -0.09 -0.08 0.36 0.49 -0.52
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for January, 2021 should be available within the next few days here.
The global and regional monthly anomalies for the various atmospheric layers we monitor should be available in the next few days at the following locations:
Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
Dr. Spencer, to my knowledge, you and Dr. Christy have not presented a public description of the method used to produce the equation you use to combine the three MSU/AMSU channels, which is central to your LT product. As with the earlier TLT versions, the logic for this effort was to remove the known cooling influence of the stratosphere on the TMT, which you now call the MT. The Version 6 equation is a weighted averaged of the TM, TP and LS series, given by :
LT = 1.538 * MT – .548 * TP + 0.01 * TP
In this equation, a negative trend in the TP will result in an additional positive trend in the LT. Of course, if the TP has a positive trend, the result would be a cooler value for your LT as the weights add to nearly 1.0. Is this equation derived using an assumption of the atmospheric temperature profile with pressure height, such as the US Standard Atmosphere, which is tuned for mid-latitudes?
If so, what is the effect on the calculated weighting if one selects lapse rates more typical of Winter in the high Arctic, where the Tropopause appears at a much lower pressure height than that found in mid-latitudes. I suggest that for the lower Troposphere, the trend for the TP on occasion may become positive, such in the Tropics where the height of the tropopause has been found to be increasing or during events like the recent warm Stratosphere reported at high latitudes. These conditions would result in a cooler monthly value and thus result in a more negative trend for the LT. Have you all investigated the seasonal and regional impacts on your choice of channel weights?
Other researchers have produced products which do not include the TP series, using only a weighted average of the LT minus the LS, for example, the TTT produced by RSS. It has also been suggested that a stronger weight be used for the LS during Winter would provide a more accurate product. Your thoughts would be appreciated.
The details of Version 6, including what you are asking about, was posted here back in 2015 (link below)… read the discussion surrounding Fig. 7. Basically, the averaging kernel we use (the equation you show, except your last term should be “LS”) is optimized to reduce the stratospheric influence on LT as much as possible. You cannot interpret the terms individually because they represent a deconvolution of overlapping weighting functions. For instance, if the lower stratosphere was to cool, you cannot know how it will affect LT without also taking into account how that cooling also affects the other 2 channel (MT and TP).
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/
Thanks Roy. I hadn’t looked at your link for a while. Sorry about that typo (TP instead of LS) in the equation, I hadn’t completely finished editing when I hit “send”.
But, you still haven’t described your method for calculating the weighting functions, such as those for the individual scan angles in Fig 2 and for the different channels in Fig 7. I repeat, don’t you need to make an assumption regarding lapse rate, such as the US Standard Atmosphere, to create these theoretical weighting profiles?
Please note that one can simply use the respective channel trends in your equation and calculate the trend for the LT. I think this fact refutes your comment:
As a result, one can see directly from the data what the impact is, by comparing the trends from earlier time periods with the trend for the entire period. Of course, the LT weighting for the LS is only 0.01, thus the trend in the LS has ~1/55 the impact of the TP on the trend in the LT. In the end, it’s the trends which matter most, not the monthly values.
Dr. Spencer, I have no insight into what E. Swanson is talking about. But his questions seem insightful. There is also a rumor that UAH are the only of the global series that do not state their “code” (whatever this may mean) so that it is impossible for other professionals to find out how UAH arrive at their results. This has been a persistent objection to UAH. It is claimed that GISS, RSS, NOAA, Berkley etc. all provide information so that anyone with the necessary understanding can verify their calculations but not UAH.
Why?
Eric,
To demonstrate just how sensitive the linear regression trend is to even small changes in the weighting I changed the LS term from +0.01 to -0.01. The trend jumped from +0.1378C/decade to +0.1434C/decade. You wouldn’t notice on individual monthly anomalies, but over the long term this has a HUGE impact on the trend and it wasn’t even a big change.
Do we have any justification for the selection of 1.538, -0.548, and 0.01 tuning parameters?
And why are we adding part of the LS channel anyway. It seems like by adding you are injecting its cooling bias into the LT. If anything wouldn’t you want to subtract a portion of it to remove that cooling bias?
Err…it’s worse than I thought. My +0.1434C/decade figure above should have been +0.1446C/decade.
That’s with…
MT = 1.548
TP = -0.538
LS = -0.010
…which sums to 1.000 like it did before. I just added 0.01 to MT and TP to make up for the loss of 0.02 on LS.
swannie…”Dr. Spencer, to my knowledge, you and Dr. Christy have not presented a public description of the method used to produce the equation you use to combine the three MSU/AMSU channels…”
Typical. The global average shows significant cooling and Swannie et al begin questioning the UAH methodology. As far as I can make out, the responses of each channel are the weighting curves. You should be able to work out the responses yourself and compare them to what UAH has derived. It’s not a big secret.
But the source code?
Let the debate begin
No debate really, the world is not rapidly warming and there is no need for panic. Greta can now go and try to be an average teenage…
Of course, she will need extensive counseling to reverse the emotional damage her parents and the alarmist media inflicted on her.
Arguing about minute differences is global warming trends with the intent to prove or disprove anthropogenic “Climate Change” is really a waste of time from a standpoint of the emerging new Science of Climate Change, which shows:
a) Lack of a physical mechanism for non-condensing trace gases to affect Earth’s climate;
b) Lack of evidence in the geological record that CO2 has ever controlled climate; and
c) Plenty of evidence that a reduction of cloud cover and albedo was the cause of warming since 1980, not CO2!
For more details, please watch the video presentations linked to this blog post:
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2021/02/08/ned-nikolov-what-can-nasa-planetary-data-tell-us-about-drivers-of-earths-climate/
These presentations were made at the AMS 101st Annual Meeting last month… The climate Paradigm is shifting!
It sounds like you have it all figured out. Can you post your model so that we can see how it ranks in explaining and predicting the global mean temperature? Also, what causes cloud cover and albedo to change in your model?
bdgwx, Ned doesn’t have it all figured out, doesn’t even sound like it. A better source for evidence of cloud cover and albedo interannual variability is here and contradicts Ned Nikolov’s c):
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014RG000449
“The satellite observations obtained over this period (last 40 years) indicate that the albedo of Earth is highly constrained, restricting the degree to which the albedo varies over space and limits the variability of albedo over time…The small variability observed suggests a high degree of buffering by the albedo of clouds.”
Variations in albedo cannot account for the magnitude of the recent past and current EEI. There are many papers contradicting Ned’s a) both from experimental results in the lab and in the wild.
Ned’s linked video shows the source of the model is not 1st principle theoretically derived. Ned’s model as discussed in the video is just an advanced curve fit that mixes both brightness temperatures and thermometer temperatures for certain solar system objects without much, if any, discussion of the implications.
One could add as well that there were periods like the Minoan, Roman, and Middle Ages or Viking that were warmer than now and were regarded as prosperous times, opposite of the Bronze Age Collapse, Dark Ages, or Little Ice Age. Probably the warmest period in 10K years was about 8K yrs ago when the Sahara was a savanna or forest and large mega fauna could survive. So even if the 1.5C/100 years turned into 5C, it wouldn’t be the end of the world but a rebirth.
Why not go to 40 year?
IIRC, the 30 averaging standard was originally chosen to match the size ledger paper the Weather Bureau folks had handy.
Today we can make much better suggestions for tracking several intervals, e.g. 60 years to try to smooth out a PDO or AMO cycle.
Climates are defined in terms of a 30 year average of weather conditions.
So 30 years is not just some random number.
If you are going to reply to Ric, it’s customary to read what he had to say. 30 years is just a convention, and really is a random number – if the Weather Bureau had tabloid size paper we would probably have a 60 year standard. I don’t see why don’t they use the whole period available, ~200 years – after all climate is a property that surely is more permanent than the lifespan of a human.
I was wondering that, too. 30 years is often mentioned as a *minimum* time for a climate baseline, but it seems a longer baseline would be better. Basically, the data is all now 0.12 C lower than it was before. A 40 yr average would pretty closely split the difference to only be 0.06 C lower than before (using an eyeball estimate).
This change has the psychological effect of making the 1980’s seem cool, rather than making the 2010’s seem warm. Of course, there is no actual change in data, but it will be easier for casual observers to conclude there has not been much warming. If the consensus had been that the 1980’s were unusually cool, this would make more sense to me. Instead, the 1980’s were already warmer than previous decades, so making them look “cool” seems odd to me.
This *will* make it much more likely that those who have been predicting a drop below the baseline will be correct. /grin
“it will be easier for casual observers to conclude there has not been much warming”
Which is great, because actually there hasn’t been much warm-up.
I’m struggling with the concept of 0.24C being somehow psychologically warmer than 0.12C.
The time has come. The kingdom of negative temperatures has come near.
Ken
As you can see below your comment, Rawandi seems to have the same problem.
Both 0.24 C and 0.12 C aren’t temperatures.
They are mathematical constructs: differences between the absolute temperature computed for a given month and the average of such monthly temperatures over a given reference period, be it 1979-1998 (in earlier UAH times), 1981-2010 or now 1991-2020.
Here are these monthly averages for 1981-2010 (Kelvin, Celsius):
Jan 263.04 -10.11
Feb 263.11 -10.04
Mar 263.30 -9.85
Apr 263.72 -9.43
Mai 264.32 -8.83
Jun 264.97 -8.18
Jul 265.29 -7.86
Aug 265.11 -8.04
Sep 264.47 -8.68
Oct 263.78 -9.37
Nov 263.27 -9.88
Dec 263.07 -10.08
If you obtain, for the Globe in Dec 2020, the average absolute temperature 263.34 K, the anomaly wrt 1981-2010 will be
263-34 – 263.07 = 0.27 (K or C, but not… F!).
J.-P. D.
“Both 0.24 C and 0.12 C aren’t temperatures”
Bindidon, you’re terribly wrong. When you put the symbol C for Celsius behind a number what you get is a temperature. It is so by definition.
binny…”Both 0.24 C and 0.12 C arent temperatures.
They are mathematical constructs:”
More Teutonic mysticism from Binny. Whey do they use C for Celsius if the values are mathematical constructs? One degree C is based on dividing the range of expansion of mercury in a vial between the heat quantities at the freezing point of water and the boiling point of water by 100.
It would seem reasonable to conclude that the values -.24C and -.12C are based on heat quantities therefore not mathematical constructs.
I repeat: anomalies are NOT temperatures.
1. They are departures from a mean computed out of measured temperatures or quantities out of which temperatures can be inferred.
2. And moreover, this mean is not the trivial average over all months of the reference period; it is a 12 month vector instead, whose elements are the average of all corresponding months in the period, what makes them even more abstract because they (intentionally) lack seasonal information.
Hence, though being expressed in Celsius, Kelvin, Fahrenheit, Rankine Réaumur or whatever you want, anomalies are mathematical constructs, and NOT technically measured entities.
Basta ya!
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, I don’t think you realize that an “abstract” or “mathematically constructed” temperature is still a temperature.
That is why Roy states that 0.12 C is the “global temperature” for last January.
Rawandi
I think it’s better for you never to write things like
” I don’t think you realize… ”
I realize a lot more than you ever could imagine.
And… you did not understand a bit of what I wrote.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, how do you explain Roy’s statement that 0.12 C is the “global temperature” for January?
The obvious explanation is that the anomalies are temperatures.
Rawandi,
Dr. Spencer writes +12 C meaning a positive departure from a mean of the 30 year actual temperatures whatever they are. It is not a measured temperature like +12 C above 0 C and -12 C below 0 C equal to 285K and 261K, respectively.
I’m happy to agree with Bindidon.
Chic Bowdrie
Thank you, fair enough!
J.-P. D.
Roy Spencer wrote above:
“The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for January, 2021 was +0.12 deg. C, down a little from the December, 2020 value of +0.15 deg. C. NOTE: We have changed the 30-year averaging period from which we compute anomalies to 1991-2020, from the old period 1981-2010. This change does not affect the temperature trends.”
Without getting into a philosophical debate about measurements, the anomaly is the value you get when you subtract the that 30-year average Roy just mentioned from the actual temperature.
So if the global temperature for the month of December is -9.81 C and the 30-year average for Decembers is -10.08, the difference is 0.27.
That anomaly is based on the average of Decembers for 1981-2010, and was the result last month.
This month the anomaly for that same month is now 0.15 C, because the baseline has been changed. It is now the average of the 30 Decembers from 1991-2020.
So which is the “real” temperature? 0.27C, 0.15C, or -9.81C?
It’s -9.81C. That remains the same regardless of the baseline (unless UAH adjust the data at some later time).
Anomalies are fairly simple mathematical constructs to help work with data more efficiently, particularly if we want to examine global and regional climate change over time.
Three charts to explain the transition from the real world of temperatures to the abstract world of anomalies: a comparison of UAH6.0 LT (lower troposphere) with UAH6.0 LS (lower stratosphere)
1. Averages of absolute temperatures
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16GaarHUs7npnzyN5-wtJ7z0qODSKplVq/view
In fact, we leave already here the world of measurements, as all points on the plots don’t represent real data, but rather monthly averages of 9504 grid cells spanning the Globe, which themselves are the result of an average of the interpretation of the original data: O2 emission sensing values coming from various sources.
2. Means of absolute temperatures
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12ntQPUMotlrIUXTYn8721WpD3S0sihjc/view
Here we are a step farer from original data and nearer to abstraction.
3. Departures from a mean including annual cycle removal
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_ecu50TZYPYfr57XIWZ_rcu9p2trm2hy/view
Real temperatures no longer exist here. Though we express them in C, K, or F, they have no longer any direct relation to temperatures.
But… that doesn’t matter: this is the way we need to accurately compare distant measurements like temperatures, snow cover, ice extent, sea levels, etc etc!
J.-P. D.
My point is that when you see data close to the baseline, that would naturally seem somehow “typical” or “close to average”. Departures from the baseline are departures from “normal”.
With a high baseline (1990-2020), the recent decade looks pretty “typical”, with the first decade as “well below average”.
With a low baseline (1980-2010), the recent decade looks “well above average”, with the first decade as pretty “typical”.
Or consider what we can say about the streaks.
* Old baseline: No month below the baseline for almost 9 years.
* New baseline: No month below the baseline for just 2.5 years.
These “feel” very different, even though the shape of the graph is identical.
A 40 year baseline would put the 1980’s a little below average, and the 2010’s a bit above average, which seems most ‘honest’ to me.
Tim, if you are suggesting that using a low baseline is psychologically favorable to climate alarmists, I think you are correct.
A 40-year temperature record as a baseline is 33% more “compacted” (solid) measurement, but now that I have thought this out it’s clearer to me that a more recent, 30-year temperature “grouping” has a more accurate accounting built within it simply due to advancements in measuring. The ARGO Float System was launched in 2002, yet it took 3 years to shake out all of the bugs. ARGO data actually begins in 2005. Right?
The baseline is arbitrary. It’s the ‘alarmists’ saying that, and it’s the ‘skeptics’ who seems to think it has significance.
So I suggest you are projecting onto ‘alarmists’ what you are actually experiencing yourself.
While the new basis period certainly looks more appropriate to my eye, this is going to mean all my databases are going to have to be changed. Can’t say I’m excited about that. lol
See how the highs and lows are now equally distant from the 0 line? This adjustment makes a lot of sense as 1980 was the end of the -AMO mid century cooling period, and 2016 was the end of the +AMO modern maximum, +AMO period.
The data now seems to want to bounce off or near the 0 line, or get pulled back towards it. Seems like a good pivot.
scott r…”This adjustment makes a lot of sense as 1980 was the end of the -AMO mid century cooling period, and 2016 was the end of the +AMO modern maximum, +AMO period”.
Interesting.
Scott R
Will there be one day in the future where you begin to understand and to take into consideration the fact
– that you are all the time looking at and talking about the detrended AMO, whose one and only reason to exist is to show AMO’s internal cyclic behavior, and
– that you have to use the undetrended variant when putting AMO in relation to any temperature series?
J.-P. D.
The absolute gormless stupidity of interpreting the optics of a baseline shift.
The relationship between anomalies at different parts of the time series remains the same regardless of the baseline.
The baseline is not a physically measured thing, it’s an arbitrary zero line that changes nothing about the anomalies relative to each other, nor the trends derived therefrom. The trend for a time period will remain the same for that time period regardless of where you put the baseline.
Like someone else referred above, it seems odd to keep changing the baseline every 10 years. Any published data prior to the changepoint now has to be adjusted to directly compare. You have to subtract the amount of the baseline shift from every anomaly to get a direct comparison.
Otherwise, it doesn’t change anything else essential, just the optics. Little bit of extra work for some people.
Someone later may will point out the 2020 anomaly compared to 2021, and not realizing they got it from two different baselines, and proclaim a massive cooling.
Last month December was 0,26, now it’s 0,15. Wrong graph.
Or different averaging period. Please read the entire post, and make a note on your calendar for ten years out.
It doesn’t look right to me , it is too high, it should be 1080 to 2020
I love the data where is all that AGW ? No where that is where it is because it is a fraud.
Just wait until we get a major volcanic eruption in the right location and with a big SO2 discharge.
AGW theory will live on even if an Ice Age were to come about because the whole thing is a scam and many have bought into the scam and will not let go.
“AGW theory will live on even if an Ice Age were to come about because the whole thing is a scam and many have bought into the scam and will not let go.”
An Ice Age can’t come, cause we been in Ice Age for millions of years.
I don’t think we going get something like the Little Ice Age, any time soon {within 50 years}. When glaciation period starts is questionable {was little Ice Age a “beginning”- was 5000 year ago a “beginning”]. It seems metric will be when glacier grow as they did during Little Ice Age and it exceeds the Little Ice Age glacial advance. Whenever that happens probably more than 50 year into future and could be more centuries or more than 1000 years.
I think glacial advance could occur more rapidly as compared to time it took glacier to advance during LIA, and the “speed” of such advance might considered more important rather than total extent that had occurred {whenever that happens} in terms claiming “the beginning” of glaciation period. It seems if go “flat” for decades, it seems we will not have fast glacial advance {anytime soon} but but it seems possible will could have “brief” pause, and get something like .14 C per decade warming for several decades which might “cause” there to be a later, rapid glacial advance.
Or seems if get anything like what IPCC is projecting in terms of global temperatures, we could return a glaciation period much sooner than 1000 years.
But seems to me it will longer than 1000 years.
Though I think anything 100 years or longer is not practical, sort like having weather forecast 5 year in future. And I don’t much going to “happen” within 100 years or said differently be similar to last 100 years. Though a super volcano whether on land or more likely in the Ocean would be “something different” if happening within 100 years.
What are chances? We don’t know when last super volcano happenned in ocean:
“Tamu Massif is an extinct submarine shield volcano in the northwest Pacific Ocean, with the characteristics of a hybrid between a mid-ocean ridge and a shield volcano. On 5 September 2013, researchers announced that it could be a single volcano which, if corroborated, would make Tamu Massif the largest known volcano on Earth.–
The Tamu Massif was formed about 145 million years ago during the Late Jurassic to Early Cretaceous period over a relatively short period of time (a few million years) and then became extinct. Tamu Massif was formed during one, geologically brief eruptive period, which scientists had previously thought was impossible on Earth.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tamu_Massif
So mean something much smaller than Tamu Massif, but a super volcano in terms +1000 cubic km of lava.
No, we are not in an “Ice Age” technically atm, we are in an interglacial (ie a warm period) in the holocene. I agree that from the beginning of the pleistocene, yes, Ice Age, would overall fit. But the last cold period ended around 12 K years ago. From the patterns we know in geology this interglacial and warm period should end more or less soon. Pray it won´t happen.
Ice Age, or one call it Icehouse Climate.
An Ice Age has variation of glacial and interglacial periods.
One could say our present Icehouse Climate has a number of Ice Ages- and each Ice Age has a number of glaciation and interglacial periods.
Or we have been in Ice Climate tens millions of year, and currently we in the coldest Ice Age of entire duration of our Icehouse Climate.
Also our interglacial period has not been warm as other interglacial periods within this most recent Ice Age.
Or, wiki:
An “icehouse Earth” is a period in which the Earth has at least two ice sheets, Arctic and Antarctic (on both poles); these sheets wax and wane throughout shorter times known as glacial periods (with other ice sheets in addition to the 2 polar ones) and interglacial periods (without). During an icehouse Earth, greenhouse gases tend to be less abundant, and temperatures tend to be cooler globally. The Earth is currently in an icehouse stage, that started 34 Ma with the ongoing Late Cenozoic Ice Age.”
More wiki:
“The Pleistocene often colloquially referred to as the Ice Age) is the geological epoch that lasted from about 2,580,000 to 11,700 years ago, spanning the world’s most recent period of repeated glaciations.”
more Wiki:
“The Pliocene follows the Miocene Epoch and is followed by the Pleistocene Epoch”
The Pliocene was warmer than Pleistocene Epoch:
https://www.globalwarming-sowhat.com/warm–cool-/
And the Pliocene and Pleistocene were colder than any other time [within last 34 millions] and as I said “recently” Pleistocene was colder than Pliocene. And earlier than 34 million ago, Earth was warmer, but when it’s warmer it also had cooler and warmer periods, where coolest times perhaps could have been as warm as our interglacial periods- or when talking +1 million of time, it cools and warms, cools, etc. And could warm then cool within 100,000 years. And it’s thought to be related to Milankovitch cycles which going on for more than billion years.
Idea that Earth is warm, now, and/or will be, is simply, dumb.
That a Ice Age creature doesn’t want it to become warmer, well, that could be regarded as a somewhat reasonable opinion.
You reiterated my post with WAY WAY more words and not really more relevant info 😉 /SCNR. BTW wiki is BS for geological stuff mostly (i am a geoscientist). But yes, i agree, “we” are totally forgetting that “climate history” did not start in 1880. That the last “Ice Age” aka pleistocene and holocene started 2.6 million years ago and that the Tertiary was a way warmer period most of the time is beyond the horizon of 90% of the malleable folks.
“You reiterated my post with WAY WAY more words…”
Yes, I do that.
As far returning to glaciation period. I am uncertain of what others would define as returning to it.
I would say if entire ocean cooled by .5 C.
Or it’s said our ocean average temperature is 3.5, and so if average was .5 C colder.
Or during Little Ice Age, I think our ocean may have cooled by as much as about 3.3 C.
Anyhow some predicted returning to glaciation period within about 1000 years.
And longest guess, I seen 75,000 years and it predicted because human are CO2 to atmosphere. As in because we adding so much CO2 it means that be delayed by long time. Which didn’t regard as reasonable. But whether 1000 or 75,000 years, what indicate it’s starting. It seems most people would say, adding glacial ice like what happenned in Little Ice Age, but just more added and adding for a longer time.
But it seems to going into glaciation period is a long process.
It seems once this current warming period ends, some going say the Ice Age is coming.
But I am not sure if Little Ice Age, wasn’t a beginning or maybe in future, it will determined that whenever the Sahara becomes a desert, that is the beginning.
My suggestion is the global temperature deviation should also be put out from the period of time from 1971- 1990 so we can get a better sense of things.
This 1991-2020 is misleading because the period is so warm for the most part. We need to contrast current temperatures to a cooler period of time in my opinion.
Or at least run two different periods of time.
It’s not misleading in the slightest. You can pick whatever baseline you want and it wouldn’t change the trend or ranking of years. You could pick the average from 1981-2020, absolute zero, the melting point of tungsten, or even the temperature of the Sun as your baseline and it wouldn’t matter…AT ALL.
cor 1971- 2000 for period of time.
In any event to me surface oceanic temperature deviation is the best indicator on the state of the climate. Currently only +.12 c above latest 30 year means.
And yet some are trying to say this is the warmest period in history, what a joke.
Unfortunately I only have 12 samples to work with here since the files haven’t updated yet, but I’m estimating the baseline moved up about +0.136C. There is large error here though. Part of the problem is that I’m comparing last month’s update with 3 decimals of precision to the screenshot above which only has 2 decimals. But I’m still seeing some oddities. For example, the change from Jan to Feb according to last month’s update was 0.755 – 0.564 = 0.191. But with this update and with its new baseline the change is 0.59 – 0.42 = 0.17. I was expecting it to be closer 0.19 like it was before. I’ve not seen an update have that big of an effect before.
Anyway…+0.136 is my best guess at the baseline change. We’ll have to wait until the new files post to get a better estimate.
The cool thing for those of you saying the anomaly would drop below zero this month is that it is now about 0.136 easier for that happen now.
Seems to me that it should take a good deal of time to drop below zero. . . . like ~15 years with a 30 year baseline if one assumed all the climate influencing parameters inverted. With an older baseline it would have taken ~25 years.
Since would only only take a short time for about 50% of the anthropogenic CO2 to leave the atmosphere if we stopped burning fossil fuels it seems a reasonable idea to not do anything until we can actually recognize any harm from it. Way too much hot wind about absolute numbers, base periods and predictions that never seem to materialize.
I believed in the CO2 warming fraud back in 2006, then worked for a UK Carbon management company. I walked out in disgust. Looks like I am gradually been proved right.
How is that?
It takes time to get used to the new baseline. At the moment it’s a bit strange for me.
This is a biased climate alarmist chart.
Reason: It has a small vertical range of only 1.6 degrees C., making tiny changes in the temperature, that no human could notice, appear to be important.
The standard deviation on the UAH data is about 0.25. It is regarded as best practice if the vertical range on chart is no more than 1-sigma below the min or above the max. Therefore he could have, and probably should have, made the vertical range even wider at -0.9 to +0.9.
Also, keep in mind that the standard deviation on global mean temperatures over the last 2000 years is about 0.2. So the warming of 0.55 over the last 40 years is exceeds the past variation by almost 2 standards of deviation. To capture this warming you need a large vertical range. The plot would look kinda like the chart of the GameStop stock price as of late.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-020-0530-7/figures/3
bdgwx,
There are multiple ways to derive standard deviation SD depending on what is chosen for the input data.
Here, one can choose to gather some numbers from an instrument on a laboratory bench, to look at its distribution and if valid, calculate a SD. Then, one might repeat with another instrument. Then in a different lab. One can then gather data from space, with one SD possibly to measure the SD of noise with radiation masked, then another SD with radiation coming in.
The type of SD that has most information content is an overall SD calculated on numbers closest to what happens in reality, the boots and all, worst cases included, overall SD that can be compared with other operators like RSS. The differences between UAH, RSS and others if any have to be reflected in the figures that are relied upon for major decisions like government policies.
So, in this type of context, can you please tell us what SD you are discussing? And why you chose SD as a measure of goodness? How do you propose comparing land based systems to these satellite ones, if indeed you do? Geoff S
For UAH I did a stdev.p in Excel on the monthly values.
For the Holocene I used the values provided by Kaufman et al. 2020.
I have said the same thing , the scale should be set at the full temperature variations range of the Holocene last 10000 years to put it in the right context , and I’m talking real data spread, not the fake smoothed and bastardized hockey chart
The warming contained in this data set on this correct scale would become almost a flat line
Richard Greene
I agree. But the same data displayed in WoodForTrees’ miniwindow is even worse:
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/every
My preferred chart is this one:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VWxcZvDTDr54UgKn8fltiPwBX59ESVEr/view
because here I see more a forest than lots of trees.
J.-P. D.
Your chart is worse.
The vertical range is even smaller.
An honest chart would have the range of conventional thermometer as on the home page of my climate science blog:
http://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/
Any UAH chart is biased because it happens to start at the beginning of the poast-1970s warming trend, which is long after man made CO2 emissions began ramping up.
CO2 levels have been increasing since the trough of the Great Depression in 1932, although we have no accurate measurements until 1958.
1940 would be a good starting point for a chart comparing the global average temperature and CO2 emissions.
… But surface temperature compilations did not sufficient global coverage before 1950, so had a lot of infilling
… But UAH data, with good global coverage, start in 1979
… But CO2 real-time data start in 1958
We far too often see biased charts that visually exaggerate global warming.
Due diligence:
I loved the past 45 years of global warming, and want more of it.
Also important but not apparent on such graphs is the location in time and space of such variations.
If it is only warming in the upper atmosphere, or if the warming is where it is bitterly cold all year around, or if it is warming in Winter, or mostly at night, is that actually warming?
Or is it more properly referred to as “becoming more mild’?
The purpose of any chart is to make the data clear. Ideally, the data should fill the chart, and you adjust x and y axes to accommodate easy viewing.
What would be dumb, for example, would be to track the growth in height of a human being, using the height of the atmosphere as the scale.
Never mind the irony of the chart being called ‘a biased climate alarmist chart’, when the author is anything but.
A chart covering the range of the knowledge gained from reading your comments, would range from “”negative” to zero”.
I was talking about ‘projection’ above, and this is as clear an example as you could hope for, garnished with a generous dollop of irony.
Is it as dumb as impoverishing people, and destroying our economy, and putting people out of work, and milling wildlife, all over some changes in temperature that no one could notice on bare skin, even if that change occurred over a period of minutes while someone was trying to notice any change?
The southern hemisphere and the tropics have cooled down, now it’s time for the northern hemisphere. It’s going to be a long winter.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_UGRD_ANOM_JFM_NH_2021.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_JFM_NH_2021.png
” Its going to be a long winter. ”
Maybe in Russia or in Northern America. But certainly not in Europe.
J.-P. D.
No. Europe is as sensitive to SSW anomalies as other continents in the Northern Hemisphere.
From my perspective, the end year for the average range should be closer to the current year, so 2020 is a good choice. The remaining question is whether the range should have been extended to 40 years instead of 30. More important is the downward trend for the last two months. Is there a good explanation for why last year was so warm?
Last year was so ‘warm’ because there was an El Nino event. El Nino is now over and we are entering what looks to be a strong La Nina.
No, just a moderate one.
Ken
If we were ‘entering what looks to be a strong La Nina’, then Tokyio Climate Center’s picture below would show no change in the blue bar since the January forecast (10% neutral, 90% La Nina):
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
J.-P. D.
The two hypothesis I’ve seen are 1) reduced aerosol optical depths due to the pandemic and 2) record low Arctic sea ice which always Earth to gain more heat in the summer and then release more of into the atmosphere during the fall. Note that 2020 ONI was -0.3 or since ENSO effects are usually lagged by 3 months or so the average from 2019/10 to 2020/9 was 0.1. So ENSO was mostly neutral. We would normally have expected 2020 to be a bit cooler than 2016 due to the ENSO cycle.
Time S,
2020 was warm because the oceans were warm. The oceans were warm because ENSO/PDO have been mainly positive over the last 7 years. This graph shows where the oceans have been and you can see why we are now cooling.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2014/to/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2014/to/trend
The other part of the equation is the AMO which has been positive for at least 25 years. When that goes negative we will see more lasting cooling.
The last time the PDO and AMO were both negative was the 1960-1977 period.
Hey Richard, just wondering if you still believe that ENSO 1.2 is the first indicator of what is coming?
Rob, generally speaking the 1.2 area tells us whether we are seeing a lot of upwelling cold water. So, it is often a leading indictor for the future of the 3.4 area. Recently, it has been warming so that would generally indicate the La Nina is coming to an end within a few months.
OTOH, this particular change appeared to be driven in a rather unusual manner. Large storms in the N. Pacific drove currents in a move southerly direction which pushed some warmer water into the 1.2 area. This has cut off most of the upwelling cold water for now.
It will be interesting to see if this effect lasts or the more normal east to west flow returns. It appears so but the upwelling cold water has not returned to any large degree.
It is not just 1.2. Three of the four ENSO regions have warmed by a degree or more from their lowest point.
And although the prevailing current is east to west either side of the equator, the prevailing current in the convergence zone is west to east.
Rob
It might be interesting to look at HadSST3’s 5 degree grid cells in all these NINO x corners.
Maybe I download it again, my data on the disk sure is a bit oldy.
HadISST1 SST would be even more interesting because of the absolute data and the 1 degree resolution, but they have a huge delay before publishing their most recent data.
J.-P. D.
Dr. Spencer,
I totally agree with those who’ve been saying that you should use the 40 year averaging period. A longer period gives a more accurate anomaly value relative to the long term average. You’ve got the data, use it. I assume that you start in 1980 so as to have a 13 month history in the average.
Using only a 30 year average captures more of the most recent plus side of the AMO, leaving out a decade of – AMO. Ironically, that actually makes it looks like there has been less warming to the casual observer. But that also leaves you open to the criticism that you are purposely cooking the books to reduce the anomaly.
Alarmists cook the books; scientists do what makes the most sense to yield the most accurate picture of what is going on.
Can you justify using a 30 year period rather than the available 40 year period? “We’ve always used 30 years” is not a good answer. If you are going to make a change in the baseline once every 10 years, you should make the one that provides the most comprehensive picture to the consumer of the data.
“We’ve always used 30 years” is the best response to current trends.
Choosing 40 vs 30 years does not make the monthly anomalies any more or less accurate. Hell, Dr. Spencer could wake up one day and decide to make the baseline the monthly average from November 1986 and it would literally make no difference whatsoever to the accuracy of the data, the trends, the 13m mean, or the rankings of months and annual means.
And because the baseline is completely arbitrary then “We’ve always used 30 years” is a perfectly acceptable answer. It just doesn’t matter…like…AT ALL.
I completely agree that — mathematically — the baseline makes no difference. As you say, important results like the trend will be exactly the same.
But reporting that the current month was “+0.24 C” or only “+0.12 C” (or even “-0.5 C” or “+1.2 C” from some other arbitrary baseline) *sounds* very different to a causal observer. Saying “we have not dipped below the baseline for nearly 9 years” sounds very different from “we were below the baseline just 2.5 years ago”.
That…I absolutely agree with. And you bet that the misinformed will be supremely confused and not even realize it. Your comment above about the possibility of the anomaly dropping below zero and the misinformed proclaiming their previous prediction of such an event to be correct is a good example. Trying to explain that they aren’t as correct as thought is going to be a nightmare.
It seems to me that there are two objectives for plotting this data. One is to see the temperature trends, short and long term, and their response to events such as El ninos. A second objective is comparing the current value against a long term baseline. Therefore using data covering the longest period will yield a more accurate long term baseline unless there is something wrong with that part of the dataset. To say that “it doesn’t matter regarding the anomaly is absurd. The anomaly calculated on the 40 year baseline is twice (.24C) that of one calculated on the 30 year baseline (.12C). It matters because the anomaly number will be quoted on other discussions boards all over the internet.
Sure, “long term” with respect to climate is not decades but centuries or millenia. But in this data set, we’ve only got 40 years of good data, so all 40 years should be used to determine the average value against which the anomaly is calculated. It’s just common sense.
Plus, it protects against the charge that only a portion of the data was used in order to generate results more favorable to one’s own viewpoint.
The only thing that changes when you use all 40 years vs a 30 year subset is the position of the 0 line in the chart. Nothing else changes.
Nobody is going to charge UAH with using only a subset of the data to produce the anomaly baseline because none of us think it will make any difference. The results are all the same no matter what baseline UAH choses to use. The accuracy of the data stays the same. The warming trend stays the same. The relative ranking of the months stays the same. And all conclusions made with the 1981-2010 baseline are the exact same as the conclusions made with the 1991-2020 baseline. In fact, UAH could arbitrarily decide to make the baseline based only on the 1979 data. Everything still stays the same except the positioning of the 0 line in the chart.
bdgwx
Dan M is right, even if the anomaly wrt the mean of 1981-2020 is 0.20 instead of 0.24 C, when he writes
” It matters because the anomaly number will be quoted on other discussions boards all over the internet. ”
…
” Plus, it protects against the charge that only a portion of the data was used in order to generate results more favorable to ones own viewpoint. ”
That namely is the point he made. It is no longer a simple technical detail.
J.-P. D.
Ah…so this isn’t a technical point, but a point about how the less informed may misinterpret the data because of the change. That I can agree with.
-Weve always used 30 years- is the best response to current trends.
The length of the baseline period does not affect “response”.
I think 30 or 40 years is weather. And century is more connected to global temperature. But we don’t have accurate record and don’t have long record of something approaching “more accurate”. So in meantime, 30 years seems ok. How about we wait another decade before going to 40 or 50 years?
And as for global temperature, sea level rise, and what happening with Artic polar sea ice {and Argo floats] are going improve over time as metric of global temperature
Last month the delta for December 2020 was +0.27 deg. C. This month its +0.15 deg. C. No one else finds that a little misleading? For continuity would it be useful to maintain some reference to that?
No, 30 years is an appropriate period in climatology. This is half the recognized 60-year cycle and corresponds to current measurement methods.
The baseline changed.
NOTE: We have changed the 30-year averaging period from which we compute anomalies to 1991-2020, from the old period 1981-2010. This change does not affect the temperature trends.
The response of Salvatore Del Prete illustrates precisely why the baseline was changed by Dr Spencer when there was no logical reason to do so – to make unthinking followers believe there has been less warming. If Mr Del Prete does in fact understand simple arithmetic, he will prefer to act otherwise, knowing this is seen as a positive amongst his cohort.
I guess I don’t understand the impetus for the change either. We’ll see what other groups do, but I suspect they’ll stick with what they had been using before. This is certainly going to confuse the less informed people.
And we know who the “less-informed” people are, and their willingness to be deliberately “confused”.
The other groups will likely stay with the baselines they have chosen for continuity. RSS, I believe, has been using the 1979-1998 baseline consistently for the past 20 years.
No you are missing my point. I want to use earlier years so the warming that has taken place won’t be obscured.
The use of later years may show a decline but based on a high temperature avg.
The use of 1991-2020 vs 1981-2010 doesn’t change the trends or rankings. Warming or cooling won’t be obscured in either scenario. It doesn’t matter. You can’t still analyze the data and draw the same conclusions as you did before.
Still I want a snap shot
You should be able to add the offsets Bellman posted below to get the original values.
It was not the rise in global temperature but the rise in galactic radiation during times of low solar activity that coincided with the pandemic.
https://i.ibb.co/7QSWPCx/onlinequery.gif
What about continuing to make the old baseline readily available to users for plotting the data? That is, create a setup where if someone wants to see the same chart against the prior baseline, they can. The chart with the new baseline could be the default, and thered be a link to the same chart with the old baseline. I fully admit I am a non-expert in this area, but it seems like that approach would resolve the controversy on this message board, without (seemingly) any scientific compromise. Also it would largely moot any argument that the switch was effected to in some way obscure the raw amount of warming over time the response would be no, the new baseline makes sense for reasons X Y and Z, but the same chart on the prior baseline is readily available.
Not a bad idea, and should be easy to set up somewhere in the directory.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/
Typo corrected: What about continuing to make the old baseline readily available to users for plotting the data? That is, create a setup where if someone wants to see the same chart against the prior baseline, they can. The chart with the new baseline could be the default, and there would be a link to the same chart with the old baseline. I fully admit I am a non-expert in this area, but it seems like that approach would resolve the controversy on this message board, without (seemingly) any scientific compromise. Also it would largely moot any argument that the switch was effected to in some way obscure the raw amount of warming over time: the response would be no, the new baseline makes sense for reasons X Y and Z, but the same chart on the prior baseline is readily available.
The link to the old data is still available in last month’s report.
Nick Stokes does a handy comparison chart of temperature datasets here using th a common baseline.
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/p/latest-ice-and-temperature-data.html
Scroll down to the graph headed “Temp anomalies rel. to base 1981-2010”
If this is just a simple change of baseline, why have some months gone down by 0.12 while other months have gone down by 0.17?
Ditto. I noticed that too.
Because the base value is calculated for each calendar month. If some months have warmed more than others in the past ten years they will have relatively lower anomalies under the new base period.
I think under the old version, this January would have been 0.26°C, which means it would have been a drop of 0.01°C compared with December 2020. In the new version it’s a drop 0.03°C. (This is one reason why I don’t think it’s a good idea to obsess over the change from one month to another)
Ah yes. Once the data files get posted we should be able to infer the changes in the monthly averages with 1991-2020 vs 1981-2010.
You can do that by looking at the average for each month of the old values during the new base period. They should all be zero for the old base period.
1 0.143
2 0.16
3 0.128
4 0.122
5 0.124
6 0.132
7 0.130
8 0.126
9 0.166
10 0.161
11 0.134
12 0.119
There may be some rounding errors, but subtract this from an old value to get a new value, or add to a new to get an old.
+1 yes of course. Thanks Bellman.
I meant on a going-forward basis in the future, a user can see the up to date chart on the old baseline if they want to call it up. Just an idea.
0.12 loseth March, April, May and December, all the rest loseth 0.13, except for January, February, September or October, in which case take your pick from 0.14, 0.16 or 0.17.
Ok. I get your point.
So again, literally nothing is happening.
More importantly, the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
DREMT
Of course it doesn’t! Everybody knows that, DREMT.
Apart from some poor ignorants, like Cassini, Newton, Mercator, Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace… and a few hundred people like Habibullin, Rizvanov, Rakhimov, Kopal, Koziel, Calamé, Eckhardt, Chapront, Migus, Moons, the Apollo and Chang’e teams etc etc etc, who continued and refined their work till nowadays.
‘We’ know: they were unfortunately all utterly wrong.
J.-P. D.
Binny,
Newton knew it. How many of the other authorities you appeal to do you also miscategorise?
Think for yourself. Slavishly believing experts might not be the best approach, particularly if you misunderstand their writings.
Have you figured out when your warming trend stops? Will there be a change to the laws of physics, or will temperatures rise to around 60,000 K in a million years?
This does not seem realistic, but is the result of a 0.6 C per decade warming trend, after a million years.
Over to you.
Swenson
” Newton knew it. How many of the other authorities you appeal to do you also miscategorise? ”
Newton perfectly understood that our Moon rotates about is axis.
See his Principia Mathematica, Book III, Proposition XVII, Theorem XV (especially in the foot notes).
You are exactly the same kind of dumb, ignorant and stubborn ass as are Robertson and ClintR.
J.-P. D.
Wrong again, JD.
Newton was clearly referring to rotating about its axis relative to the stars.
This has been explained to you before. Why do you keep trying to use the same trick? Why do you keep doing the same thing over and over, hoping for different results?
Look up Einstein’s definition of “insanity”.
“Newton was clearly referring to rotating about its axis relative to the stars.”
‘about its axis.’ Yes indeed!
First time anyone on the TEAM realized that. Congrats!
ClintR
” Newton was clearly referring to rotating about its axis relative to the stars. ”
What is really disgusting with people like you and Robertson is that you two always repeat the same nonsense, though you were clearly contradicted and did not reply – simply because you had nothing to reply.
You are a dishonest person.
Here is – again and again and again – my reaction to your lie.
No astronomer describes a rotation ‘in relation to the stars’.
Astronomers measure the exact duration of a rotation ‘in relation to the stars’.
Simply because when you measure the duration of a movement in relation to an object being itself in movement, you inevitably will obtain an erroneous result.
Newton has perfectly understood the problem.
He wrote for example that with respect to Earth, the spots on the Sun rotate in 27 1/2 days, but they do that in 25 1/2 days with respect to the fixed stars.
*
You will never accept that you are wrong.
You will repeat your nonsense all the time, exactly as does your friend-in-denial Robertson.
ClintR, you must be mentally sick to repeatedly pretend the same nonsense.
J.-P. D.
I’m definitely sad of this discussion based on ignorance and lies.
J.-P. D.
With respect to the fixed stars, astronomers can measure that the moon is rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, and not on its own axis. The motion is referred to as “revolution” or “orbiting”. The Earth both “orbits” the sun/Earth barycenter and rotates on its own axis, whilst the moon only “orbits”.
Once you understand what “orbiting” is, it is all really very simple to understand. “Orbiting” is motion in which the same side of the object remains facing towards the center of revolution, throughout.
Bindidon and Nate are so desperate.
(DREMT, will they ever get it?)
“Orbiting is motion in which the same side of the object remains facing towards the center of revolution, throughout.”
Does that rule also apply to elliptical orbits? Or do you need a special rule when the orbit is not a perfect circle? Also, when you say “center”, do you mean the center of the ellipse or the focus where the barycenter is?
I don’t know if they will ever get it, ClintR. I doubt they will. Just look at Tim Folkerts.
I don’t post for them, I just post for anybody reading who might be interested.
So, anyway:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation
“A rotation is simply a progressive radial orientation to a common point. That common point lies within the axis of that motion. The axis is 90 degrees perpendicular to the plane of the motion. If the axis of the rotation lies external of the body in question then the body is said to orbit. There is no fundamental difference between a “rotation” and an “orbit” and or "spin". The key distinction is simply where the axis of the rotation lies, either within or outside of a body in question. This distinction can be demonstrated for both “rigid” and “non rigid” bodies.”
An object that is rotating about an external axis, without rotating about its own center of mass, keeps the same side always oriented towards the center of revolution. So there is a source for the definition of “orbiting” that I mentioned.
Folkerts is still hung up about what the “center” of an orbit is. He’s either an idiot, or playing games with semantics.
I vote “Both of the above”.
A train on an oval track always has the same side facing the inside of the track. Possibly TF is too stupid to face that reality.
“(DREMT, will they ever get it?)”
Well, YOU, Clint, said, ‘about its axis’.
You don’t seem to agree with DREMT or your previous self.
Do you get that?
“I don’t post for them, I just post for anybody reading who might be interested.”
Those people should be aware that you are purposefully misleading them.
Same Wikipedia article on Rotation
“A rotation is a circular movement of an object around a center (or point) of rotation.”
We all know that ORBITS are ELLIPTICAL.
Thus ORBITS are NOT, in general, equivalent to a ROTATION, which is required to be a CIRCULAR MOVEMENT.
For the 47th time you guys misrepresent and cherry-pick the facts, requiring us to correct you.
This is the essence of trolling, and is pointless.
Just stop.
Troll Nate, any rational person that follows this will quickly realize it is YOU that is the idiot.
The statement in my comment was crystal clear. I even bolded the clarification.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/#comment-606584
Yet you tried to misrepresent my words.
You are a troll, but there is no way you will stop because that requires maturity.
“A train on an oval track always has the same side facing the inside of the track. Possibly TF is too stupid to face that reality.”
But the “side of a train” only faces the exact center of an ellipse at 4 points each orbit (when it reaches the major or minor axes). The “side of a train” only faces the foci twice per orbit (at the major axis.
So it is simply incorrect to say one side of a train always faces toward a fixed point. Any rule would have to specify exactly which way a moon would face. (HINT: Moons do not stay oriented the way a train would. Nor do they always face one focus. Nor do they face the center of an ellipse.)
The “rule” that “the same side of the object remains facing towards the center of revolution” is simply wrong — it does not match with how real orbits work.
“A rotation is simply a progressive radial orientation to a common point.”
But orbits are not rotations! Moons do not move in perfect circles. Therefore this definition does not apply.
Tim, nobody is denying libration happens. Still, the same side of the moon generally faces towards the Earth throughout the orbit. Libration means we see slightly more than that one side at various points.
If you don’t like the Wikipedia entry on rotation, which plainly states that an “orbit” is just another word for a rotation about an external axis, then maybe you should try changing the entry. I’m sure the authors are aware that most orbits are elliptical, yet they happily state what they state. It’s not a problem for them, so why is it a problem for you?
P.S: Read these comments from ftop_t:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-582080
What TF is trying to do is throw out enough nonsense to confuse the issue. It’s called “perverting reality”. He can’t admit that the same side of a body in pure orbital motion always faces the inside of the orbit. If he admits the truth, he knows his false “church” is found wrong. His cult doesn’t allow that.
Denying reality is why they’re idiots.
‘relative to the stars’ is not helpful to your cause. It just shows that you are confused about the issue.
All of us, including DREMT, have been discussing rotation relative to the stars.
The issue has been the axis of rotation.
Given that anyone can edit Wikipedia, it is a good place to start on a quest for information, and gets many things roughly right, but also has errors and inaccuracies.
But when it ‘seems’ to agree with him, DREMT wants us to accept it as being the ultimate AUTHORITY even when it exhibits contradictions.
Regardless, all sources agree that a ROTATION is circular motion around a point. And elliptical motion, in general, is not equal to circular motion.
If we can’t agree on these basic facts then all is lost.
Clint R…whilst some of them obfuscate the issue (Group A), others won’t even accept that a ball on a string can be described as rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass (Group B). There are endless disputes with people arguing that a ball on a string is rotating on its own axis. Until Group A starts correcting Group B, these discussions will carry on going nowhere.
Once again, those from Group A still confused about rotation and elliptical orbits need to read these comments from ftop_t:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-582080
“Tim, nobody is denying libration happens. Still, the same side of the moon generally faces towards the Earth… “
That’s a start. A tidally locked moon does always face generally toward its planet. Now take the next step. Any robust theory should be able to predict *precisely* which way the moon will face. You should be able to state *why* libration occurs in your theory, and how big the librations will be.
PS. “You” have one paragraph from a wikipedia article that supports your position. A paragraph that is directly contradicted by the very first sentence that defines “rotation”.
“We” have the definition of rotation from that article. We have the wiki article about orbits. We have literally the rest of the internet and every astronomy textbook.
Your “appeal to authority” actually weakens your case.
TF, you’re still trying to pervert reality. You’re desperate. Moon is NOT rotating about its axis. That’s why we only see one side of it. You keep trying to throw out nonsense. Libration is due to its orbital motion, as observed from Earth.
All you have is garbage, and you keep flinging it, believing you can somehow achieve different results.
That’s insanity.
Tim, I’m not making an appeal to authority. I’m simply showing you that the definition of “orbit” is a rotation about an external axis, and that an object that is rotating about an external axis (without rotating about its own center of mass) keeps the same side always pointed (generally) towards the center of revolution. These are just facts. It is not a “theory” as you keep suggesting.
Also, you seem to be avoiding ftop_t’s comments…
“I’m simply showing you that the definition of ‘orbit’ is a rotation about an external axis”
“These are just facts.”
These are opposite to the facts.
Tim and I just pointed out, again, where your ‘source’ and many other sources, prove that definition is FALSE.
But you continue to declare it is a ‘Fact’ regardless.
Ellipses are not circles, as everyone understands.
But you continue to claim the “authority” of a cherry pick of a Wikipedia post, while ignoring contradictory facts from the same article and others.
This just shows that you have NO INTEGRITY whatsoever.
Neutral observers take note: DREMT’s posts are DISHONEST and should be rejected.
FTOP”An object orbiting elliptical around an external axis cannot also be rotating on its own axis and keep the same face of the object pointing toward the external center of rotation.”
Duh!
We all (except FTOP) know that the Moon DOES NOT keep the same face pointing to the center. It has LIBRATION due to its elliptical orbit and steady rotation rate.
So FTOP wastes a lot of time DISPROVING what nobody thinks is true.
"Also, you seem to be avoiding ftop_t’s comments…"
…because as you’ll note, he shows using the Desmos online tool that you can rotate an object through an elliptical orbit (i.e. it doesn’t have to be in a circle), and he was even able to recreate libration too.
So, you have:
1) the fact that an "orbit" is just another word for a rotation about an external axis.
2) the fact that an object that is rotating about an external axis (without rotating about its own center of mass) keeps the same side facing the center of revolution throughout.
3) the fact that an object can rotate through an elliptical orbit (i.e. rotation doesn’t have to be in a circle).
4) the fact that libration can be accounted for by this rotation.
Four facts for you to deny.
DREMT,
Ftop_t is AWOL because he got his ass whupped, and made a total fool of himself, proving he has no clue what he’s talking about:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-608183
YOU are just as clueless as he is, only worse, incessantly yelping the slogans of Tesla, because you have no brain of your own.
https://giphy.com/gifs/DNCE-3oKIPusxB2uXOmoP0k
None of those are facts. You’ve lost the argument, and now youve lost all credibility.
Now SGW is here to deny that a ball on a string can be described as rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass…
…and none of the others, that know better, will correct him!
Yelp away, Fluffy.
OK, SGW.
DREMT: “Now SGW is here to deny that a ball on a string can be described as rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass”
A ball on a string CAN legitimately be described as rotating about an external point (the far end of the string). The ball (mostly) goes in a circle and (mostly) keeps a fixed orientation relative to the string while moving at a (mostly) constant speed. So can a horse on a merry-go-round.
It is, however, worth noting that the total angular momentum of the system, L = I(omega) is NOT simply
L = MRv = MR^2(omega_string)
but
L = MRv + (2/5)Mr^2(omega_ball).
= orbital angular momentum + spin angular momentum.
(R = radius from center of rotation to center of ball; r = radius of ball, M = mass of ball, v = speed of the center of the ball, omega_string = angular speed of the string; omega_ball = angular speed of ball).
So even here, the *correct* calculation must include the rotation of the ball at the same angular speed as the string.
But real orbits CANNOT be described like this. Real moons don’t travel in circles at constant speeds.
Real moons maintain a constant total angular momentum (ignoring tiny tidal interactions). Newton proved MRV is constant (for circles and ellipses). That means (2/5)Mr^2(omega_ball) is constant, so omega_ball = angular speed of the moon is constant.
Tim, just because you can choose to calculate something a certain way does not mean that a ball on a string is actually rotating on its own axis in any true physical sense. From kinematics, there are two ways to describe the motion of a ball on a string:
1) As a translation of the center of mass of the ball plus a rotation about that center of mass.
2) As a rotation of the ball about an external axis, with no rotation about the center of mass of the ball.
1) would be classed as general plane motion.
2) would be classed as fixed axis rotation.
However, if you read up on it, you will note that you should not treat as a general plane motion that which can be described as a pure rotation or a pure translation. I can link to an appropriate source if necessary. So, a ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis, at least as far as kinematics is concerned.
I will only be moving on from this once you categorically confirm that you agree a ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis.
This summarizes it well:
“However, if you read up on it, you will note that you should not treat as a general plane motion that which can be described as a pure rotation or a pure translation.”
Very good.
So since we all know the Moon is moving on an elliptical path thru space, it CANNOT be described as a pure rotation.
{Here’s where DREMT will jump in to say its perfectly ok to change fundamental definitions as needed.}
But regardless, the Moon’s elliptical motion CANNOT be described as a pure rotation, and its rotational axis is tilted.
So as DREMT AGREES: it can only be described as a General Plane Motion:
“As a translation of the center of mass of the ball plus a rotation about that center of mass.”
I think we can all thankfully say that the argument is over.
Still no response from Tim…
Let me add to what Tim was saying about angular momentum.
For a rigid body in a pure rotation, you can describe its angular momentum as L = I*omega.
I is the sum (mr^2) of all the parts of the rigid body. Omega is the constant angular velocity of the rigid body.
For the Moon, we CANNOT do that.
If you try to write down its I, using parallel axis thm, I = Mr^2 +ICM, r is distance from center,
but r is not a constant. So I is not constant. Nor is omega for the orbit, a constant.
Its angular momentum can only be written as two parts. L= Mvxr + ICM*omega, where omega is its axial angular velocity. And v and r are vector velocity and distance of the CM
Again this illustrates that the rigid-body-model is not appropriate.
No response from Tim, still.
☺
Here is a thought experiment for you. Suppose you could suddenly and instantaneously remove the Earth from the solar system. What would the Moon do?
In terms of the motion of the Moon’s center of mass, a fraction of a second after the Earth vanished the magnitude of the instanteous velocity of the Moon would not change, and the direction would be tangent to the orbital curve at the point where the Earth vanished. An analogy would be if you were in the garden spinning a ball around at the end of a string, and then you cut the string. The ball would instantly take on a straight path. This is the basic idea of the hammer throw in track and field (athletics). The Moon’s motion would from then on be determined by the gravitational pull of the Sun and to a lesser extent the other planets. The mathematical equation for position is a second order differential equation which requires two inital conditions (position and velocity) at the instant the earth is removed. The fact that the Earth was there previously has no relevance. The same subsequent motion of the Moon could be obtained by “throwing” it with the same velocity from the same position it was in when the Earth was removed.
Hopefully this is not controversial.
The more interesting question is whether the Moon would be spinning after the Earth is removed. Again, the rotation of the Moon from the reference point of the Sun or any distant point would not change in the instant after the Earth is removed. The “Moon doesn’t rotate on its axis” crowd would have to insist that after the Earth is removed, the Moon would move on with no rotation since the absence of the Earth cannot change the Moon’s angular momentum about its axis. Hence the moon would instantly switch from showing the same side to the Earth to showing the same side to the Sun. I suggest you try this with a tennis ball and a string in the garden.
SS
Steve, the instant Earth disappeared, Moon would still have its instantaneous linear momentum, but no angular momentum. If its velocity vector were directed toward Sun, it may even impact that body, or go into orbit around it. If its velocity vector were directed away from Sun, it may have enough escape velocity to get away.
But, you’re correct in that if Moon got into a new orbit around Sun, it would have only one side facing the center of that orbit. It has no axial rotation now, and gravity does not provide axial rotation.
Earth is going about 30 km/sec around the Sun and our moon is going about 30 km/sec around the sun.
And Moon is going about 1 km/sec around Earth.
Or Moon would still be going around the Sun, but one could have hohmann transfer of about 1 km/sec. So if timed right, it’s solar orbit could lower in perihelion or raise in Aphelion.
Currently Earth at
Perihelion (10^6 km) 147.092
Aphelion (10^6 km) 152.099
So it lower the Perihelion of 147.092
Or raise Aphelion of 152.099
So could raise a lot get near Mars distance
Or lower a lot and get near Venus.
Or it raise Perihelion or lower Aphelion
An interesting question is if does inefficient hohmann transfer,
Say, happen near Equidox??
Also moon tilted relative to Sun so possible to change it’s inclination to Sun. We are at zero inclination to Sun {because universe revolves around us:) but depending when, it could remain at zero or not. Zero would be “Moon’s Equidox” relative to Earth {a half moon as we see it}.
Rather than “universe revolves around us”, I should said, “spins around us”.
And the 1.5 degree tilt of moon remains a 1.5 degree tilt to the Sun. But without Earth, Moon’s tilt would wander more over enough time. And Moon gets a 365 day, day. With same tilt {for some time}.
☺
“Moon would still have its instantaneous linear momentum, but no angular momentum. ”
Oh? The ease with which Clint discards laws of physics is astonishing.
We’ll add Conservation of Angular Momentum to the growing list of physics laws and principles that Clint denies.
But no worries, TROLLS dont need to make sense.
Wrong again, troll Nate.
Angular momentum is conserved. Moon has no angular momentum before Earth vanishes, so it has no angular momentum after.
But you’re correct in that you never make any sense.
“Moon has no angular momentum”
You and DREMT continually claimed the Moon is simply orbiting and therefore it is simply ROTATING around the barycenter.
So we have a mass that has ROTATION but NO ANGULAR MOMENTUM?
A similar experiment has already been done and referenced on this site on one of the thousands of posts about this topic.
A guy on a space station, which orbits the Earth spin a ball on a string and released it, the ball referenced to the earth continued to spin and did not keep one face towards the earth.
@Steve
The linear velocity of the closest point of the moon is
v(closest) = (r-r(1)) x w
The linear velocity of the farthest point of the moon is
v(farthest) = (r+r(1)) x w
Where:
r is the radius from the barycenter to the center of the moon
r(1) is the radius of the moon
w is the angular velocity of the moon’s orbital rotation
Bottom line is the far side of the moon is moving faster by the diameter of the moon (times the same angular velocity) than the near side. This variance in velocity will cause the orbital rotation to convert to axial rotation when you remove the Earth.
It is the same principle as releasing a ball from over your head. The ball is not rotating in your hands, but the higher point is moving faster than the lower point which is near your head.
FTOP,
All this is true except:
“This variance in velocity will cause the orbital rotation to convert to axial rotation when you remove the Earth.”
The Moon has axial-spin, and spin angular momentum after leaving orbit.
While in orbit it had orbital angular momentum, Mvr, associated with orbiting at speed v, at a distance, r from the barycenter.
But this is NOT converted to spin angular momentum. It is still present after the Earth vanishes, since the Moon still has M and v, and is still r from the barycenter.
Thus by conservation of angular momentum it MUST ALSO have had spin angular momentum, and thus axial-spin WHILE IN ORBIT.
Nope.
It has angular momentum relative to the barycenter. Not relative to its own axis. That angular momentum gets imparted into axial rotation upon release
The formula for the “closest” point’s position can be seen in the proof section here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicycloid
axial rotation radian = (alpha)
orbital rotation radian = (theta)
R = orbital radius to “closest” point
r = rotation object’s radius
Starting as the “closest” point; its location is:
x = (R)COS(theta)
y = (R)SIN(theta)
As rotational movement happens, the “closest” point is found by:
x = (R + r)COS(theta) – (r)COS((alpha)+(theta))
y = (R + r)COS(theta) – (r)SIN((alpha)+(theta))
(see proof linked above)
In order to remain in the position of “closest”, its current location must equal
x = (R)COS(theta)
y = (R)SIN(theta)
Thus,
x = (R)COS(theta) = (R + r)COS(theta) – (r)COS((alpha)+(theta))
y = (R)COS(theta) = (R + r)COS(theta) – (r)SIN((alpha)+(theta))
This condition can only be true when
(alpha) = 0
This is obvious when you combine terms:
x = (R + r)COS(theta) – (r)COS((ZERO)+(theta))
y = (R + r)COS(theta) – (r)SIN((ZERO)+(theta))
Becomes
x = (R + r)COS(theta) – (r)COS(theta)
y = (R + r)COS(theta) – (r)SIN(theta)
Consolidating r(COS) results in
x = (R)COS(theta)
y = (R)SIN(theta)
This is a great visual that shows any axial rotation will move the “closest” point farther from the center of rotation and since the closest point always stays the same; there is no axial rotation.
https://www.geogebra.org/m/zGPdwNBY
** Correcting y-axis where COS was accidentally used instead of SIN **
Nope.
It has angular momentum relative to the barycenter. Not relative to its own axis. That angular momentum gets imparted into axial rotation upon release
The formula for the closest points position can be seen in the proof section here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicycloid
axial rotation radian = (alpha)
orbital rotation radian = (theta)
R = orbital radius to closest point
r = rotation objects radius
Starting as the closest point; its location is:
x = (R)COS(theta)
y = (R)SIN(theta)
As rotational movement happens, the closest point is found by:
x = (R + r)COS(theta) (r)COS((alpha)+(theta))
y = (R + r)SIN(theta) (r)SIN((alpha)+(theta))
(see proof linked above)
In order to remain in the position of closest, its current location must equal
x = (R)COS(theta)
y = (R)SIN(theta)
Thus,
x = (R)COS(theta) = (R + r)COS(theta) (r)COS((alpha)+(theta))
y = (R)SIN(theta) = (R + r)SIN(theta) (r)SIN((alpha)+(theta))
This condition can only be true when
(alpha) = 0
This is obvious when you combine terms:
x = (R + r)COS(theta) (r)COS((ZERO)+(theta))
y = (R + r)SIN(theta) (r)SIN((ZERO)+(theta))
Becomes
x = (R + r)COS(theta) (r)COS(theta)
y = (R + r)SIN(theta) (r)SIN(theta)
Consolidating r(COS) results in
x = (R)COS(theta)
y = (R)SIN(theta)
This is a great visual that shows any axial rotation will move the closest point farther from the center of rotation and since the closest point always stays the same; there is no axial rotation.
https://www.geogebra.org/m/zGPdwNBY
** Man, this site is FUBAR, it just drops characters like “-“, hope it posts correctly this time **
Nope.
It has angular momentum relative to the barycenter. Not relative to its own axis. That angular momentum gets imparted into axial rotation upon release
The formula for the closest points position can be seen in the proof section here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicycloid
axial rotation radian = (alpha)
orbital rotation radian = (theta)
R = orbital radius to closest point
r = rotation objects radius
Starting as the closest point; its location is:
x = (R)COS(theta)
y = (R)SIN(theta)
As rotational movement happens, the closest point is found by:
x = (R + r)COS(theta) – (r)COS((alpha)+(theta))
y = (R + r)SIN(theta) – (r)SIN((alpha)+(theta))
(see proof linked above)
In order to remain in the position of closest, its current location must equal
x = (R)COS(theta)
y = (R)SIN(theta)
Thus,
x = (R)COS(theta) = (R + r)COS(theta) – (r)COS((alpha)+(theta))
y = (R)SIN(theta) = (R + r)SIN(theta) – (r)SIN((alpha)+(theta))
This condition can only be true when
(alpha) = 0
This is obvious when you combine terms:
x = (R + r)COS(theta) – (r)COS((ZERO)+(theta))
y = (R + r)SIN(theta) – (r)SIN((ZERO)+(theta))
Becomes
x = (R + r)COS(theta) – (r)COS(theta)
y = (R + r)SIN(theta) – (r)SIN(theta)
Consolidating r(COS)/r(SIN) results in
x = (R)COS(theta)
y = (R)SIN(theta)
This is a great visual that shows any axial rotation will move the closest point farther from the center of rotation and since the closest point always stays the same; there is no axial rotation.
https://www.geogebra.org/m/zGPdwNBY
“It has angular momentum relative to the barycenter. Not relative to its own axis.”
Nate, ftop_t demonstrates jumping observations from the inertial frame to an accelerated frame with that statement & without informing the reader.
ftop_t has already demonstrated with desmos that Earth’s moon has both angular momentum about a barycenter AND angular momentum about the moon’s own axis rotating once per orbit of Earth to keep the same face to Earth when observed from the single inertial frame of black cartesian coordinates shown here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/#comment-609835
“It has angular momentum relative to the barycenter.” “The angular momentum gets imparted into axial rotation upon release”
Declarations without evidence FTOP. There is no mechanism you can identify for angular momentum to be transferred from one axis to the other in this problem.
None of your math addresses that.
This is standard physics. The Moon has orbital and spin angular momentum.
When in orbit, the parallel axis thm is used to find the total angular momentum, and it is the sum of two terms. The first is Orbital, mvr. The second is Spin, Icm*omega.
Notice that the second term contains the moment of inertia of the Moon about its own center of mass.
That is only needed when there is rotation around the CM.
@Nate,
Study this diagram VERY CAREFULLY
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicycloid#/media/File:Epizykloide_herleitung.svg
Please provide the value for the angle (alpha) where the length of the radian denoted as: l(r) is ZERO.
(alpha) represents the axial rotation.
If the object is rotating on its own axis:
(alpha) must be greater than ZERO
l(r) must be greater than ZERO
the side closest to the origin (barycenter) must move away from the barycenter
All sides of the rotating object will at some time interval be closer to origin that point “P”
Since time is infinite, any lengthening of l(r) will eventually result in a full rotation of the Point “P” away from and back toward the barycenter.
Ill take a look at it FTOP.
Meanwhile, address the specific physics points in my post please. Where do you disagree and why?
FTOP,
You see there are good physical reasons to SEPARATE planetary motions into center of mass (CM) orbit, and rotation around the CM.
Orbits are well known to be elliptical. And this is explained by Newtons law of gravity. Newtons law can easily account for the elliptical path of the CM, thru space.
There are Constants of the orbital motion, the energy, E, and the angular momentum, Lorb.
Rotations around the center of mass (Spin) are best understood as independent motions with their own constant angular momentum, Lspin, and their own axis, that may have an axial tilt (obliquity).
Thus the Moon’s orbit is an elliptical path of its CM, and rotation around the CM. Due to tidal-locking they have the SAME average angular rate, a so-called 1-1 resonance.
Thus the Moon keeps the same face toward Earth on average, but in fact has Libration, due to the CONSTANT Spin angular velocity, and the VARYING orbital angular velocity, and its obliquity of 6.7 degrees.
There is no compelling reason for physics or astronomy to abandon this approach to orbital mechanics, and replace it with a description that works ONLY for purely circular, tidally-locked orbits, with obliquity = 0.
ftop_t says:
(alpha) represents the axial rotation.
Wrong! That’s where you mess up, proving you are completely ignorant of inertial reference frames.
SGW, alpha has to represent the axial rotation if you are keeping the axial rotation separate from the orbital motion. Orbital motion (without axial rotation) already involves the object changing orientation wrt an inertial frame, you see. An object that is orbiting (without rotating on its own axis) already points through e.g. N, E, S, W and back to N as it completes one orbit. That is the outside (to the orbit) face of the object.
The inside face remains pointing towards the center of revolution throughout.
So when you are adding axial rotation as well as orbital motion, alpha is going to represent that axial rotation.
@Nate
First, we are discussing what “would happen” if the earth were removed. So any position taken is theoretical.
I believe we both agree that “in theory” the moon would move tangential to its orbital path if the earth was removed and it would exhibit axial rotation.
The question is, assuming we are correct, why?
It is interesting that you cite the parallel axis theorem above.
If a person swings a bat in their hands, all portions of the bat have angular momentum based on their radius from the person’s body, but the bat is not rotating around its own axis.
The axis of rotation is the batter’s body.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Oq0fQJaQY0
Upon release, the angular momentum of the swing gets imparted on the bat and it spins on an internal axis around its center of mass.
The axis of rotation is external to the bat before it is released and gets imparted on the bat after release conserving the angular momentum.
You correctly note that the angular momentum can move to a different axis of rotation based on the parallel axis theorem. This includes moving from external to internal.
And FTOP,
Your Alpha is the angular velocity of the object in the rotating reference frame, as noted by Ball4.
So it is self-evident that Alpha must = 0 for the orientation to remain fixed toward the orbit center.
But the relevant reference frame for the Moon is the inertial frame. In that frame alpha not/= 0.
Thus you have proven the Moon must be rotating on its axis. Which agrees with the discussion above of Orbital angular momentum and Spin angular momentum.
The Moon has spin angular momentum.
“You correctly note that the angular momentum can move to a different axis of rotation based on the parallel axis theorem. This includes moving from external to internal.”
Your batter and bat are ONE body. And that body as a whole has rotation and an axis of rotation.
You describe the batter releasing the bat. Then the bat is an independent body. And then you can describe the motion of that independent body with its own axis of rotation.
Whereas for the Moon case, the Moon is always an independent body. In orbital mechanics we need to describe the Moon’s motion while in orbit.
We do so by describing the elliptical orbit of its CM around the barycenter, combined with its spin around its CM.
The two independent motions have angular momenta Lorb = mvr and Lspin =Icm*omega.
As discussed above, this is the most useful way to describe planetary motion from the physics point of view.
We can see, for example, that Lspin, and the spin angular velocity, omega, remains fixed throughout the orbit, helping us to explain Libration.
And in the thought experiment with Earths gravity vanishing, we can see that the Moon continues with the same Lspin, and omega, due to the fact that it was an independent body and its angular momentum is conserved.
Poor clueless DREMT yelps:
SGW, alpha has to represent the axial rotation if you are keeping the axial rotation separate from the orbital motion!
Alpha does not represent the axial rotation of the outer circle. Axial rotations need to be referenced to the inertial reference frame. Alpha represents the axial rotation of the outer circle wrt the rotating line extending from the origin to the center of the outer circle. Ftop_t makes a rookie mistake using a rotating reference frame. His so called proof is totally worthless.
He obviously did not heed his own advice to Study this diagram VERY CAREFULLY
Sorry SGW, you are already referencing the orbital motion to the inertial reference frame. And orbital motion already involves the object changing its orientation wrt the inertial frame, e.g. the object faces through N, E, S, W and back to N as it completes each orbit. That is without axial rotation. So, in order to keep the axial rotation separate from the orbital motion as just described, alpha has to represent the axial rotation. It’s not that you are using a rotating frame. It’s that you are using an inertial reference frame for the orbital motion, and in order to keep axial rotation separate from the orbital motion, it has to be represented by alpha.
Poor DREMT did not study the diagram carefully, or can’t read a simple diagram. The angle alpha is clearly shown. Angle alpha is measured from the ray of the angle formed by line segment Rr, which is rotating. Inertial reference frames do not rotate. You clearly do not know what you are talking about.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicycloid#/media/File:Epizykloide_herleitung.svg
Plus you are using one of your made up definitions: orbital motion.
DREMT’s explanation had nothing to do with kinematics and everything to do with quackery. Pure nonsense.
You are not listening to me. The number one rule here is that orbital motion and axial rotation have to be two completely separate motions. We are already referencing the orbital motion to the inertial reference frame. That is motion in which the same side of the object always remains pointing towards the inside of the orbit. The only way to keep axial rotation separate from that motion is to have alpha represent the axial rotation.
There is also only one way to have axial rotation as you intend it to be. That is if you have your definition of orbital motion as being motion in which the same side of the object remains pointing towards the same distant star, throughout.
The problem I have with explaining this to people is that it requires them to be able to mentally process and visualize two separate motions, and the act of adding them together, and most of the stubborn idiots on here seem to be unable to do that. Even now, you will be preparing a response with the words, "an orbit is just a path, clown" in it, completely unaware that even from the "Spinner" perspective, "an orbit" necessarily includes the orientation of the object in its definition. If not, then you can’t correctly separate the axial rotation from the orbital motion.
OK, you can respond without listening to or understanding what I’m saying now. Off you go.
DREMT spouts more nonsense, but refuses to look at the diagram, which is the topic at hand. Ftop_t wants you to CAREFULLY examine it. His whole proof is based on that diagram.
I have looked at, and understand, the diagram. I understand the point you are making. I am not spouting nonsense. Try reading and understanding what I am saying, since it refutes what you are saying.
“There is also only one way to have axial rotation as you intend it to be. That is if you have your definition of orbital motion as being motion in which the same side of the object remains pointing towards the same distant star, throughout.”
Which is the standard definition of orbit. Orbit is the trajectory of an object thru inertial space. Definitions need to be universally accepted, and yours is not.
Sorry, you don’t get to change them whenever you want in order to ‘prove’ your beliefs correct.
And NO, you cannot determine rotation rate of a celestial object using an arbitrary rotating reference frame of your choosing that cancels out its rotation.
Then claim: ‘See. The the Moon is not rotating!’
Just stop being ridiculous.
DREMT shrieks:
You are not listening to me!
You got one thing right.
I’ll wait for ftop_t to show his face. I can only stand so much drivel.
I’m sorry for your argument loss, but happy with the win.
And sorry, no credits are given out for delusions..
@Nate,
Aside from the fact that with the number of posts and constant activity, I am curious if anyone is employed who follow this site?!?
That aside, this comment is fundamentally wrong
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/#comment-610653
(alpha) is the axial rotation of point “P” around the center of the smaller circle.
This does not change, regardless of reference frame.
If I place a 33-lp on a record player and mark a point on the outside of the record with a dot, it will make 33 revolutions per minute around the post in the center of the record player.
If I plug the record player into my RV and drive down the road in a straight line, the dot will still make 33 revolutions per minute.
In either case, the location of “P” will consist of applying:
1. Locational change in the post (which may be zero, a translation, or a rotation)
2. (alpha) of “P” around the post on the record player
These are two separate motions
If I drive my RV around the 285 Loop in Atlanta (assuming) there is an external axis in downtown for orientation. The location of “P” will be:
1. Rotation of the RV around the center of town (theta)
2. (alpha) of “P” around the post on the record player
Because (alpha) is zero when the record player is turned off, you can find the location of “P” based only on the change in #1, but that is because (alpha) is zero and that portion of the equation can be resolved to not exist.
Resolving for (theta) and then calling (alpha) non-zero is applying a value from another part of the equation to a zero value.
(alpha) is not arbitrary. It would have the same value if the small circle was stationary, translating in a straight line, rotating about an external axis. Either the record player is on or it is off.
Ftop.
Lets stick with your original diagram, please, since all is well defined.
“(alpha) is the axial rotation of point ‘P’ around the center of the smaller circle.
This does not change, regardless of reference frame.”
The line called R is vector, connecting the center of the big circle to the center of the small circle, is rotating around the center. Yes?
Alpha is an angle measured from R. IOW alpha is measured RELATIVE to R, which is ROTATING.
Thus alpha is measured in a ROTAING REFERENCE FRAME. It is unambiguous.
If I stand at the center of the small circle, with my arm pointing always to P, and alpha is 0, when I look up, I will see the stars rotating around. I am standing still in a rotating frame.
ftop_t writes 7:20am about axial rotation: “This does not change, regardless of reference frame.”
Not in field of relativity. ftop_t should be able to learn about relativity from that remark. Axial rotation of point “P” around the center of the smaller circle external axis does not change because ftop_t remains observing from the inertial frame in the RV.
Building on what Nate wrote, ftop_t should climb into the accelerated frame on the spindle of the LP record at 33rpm and find that ftop_t has joined the “non-spinners” frame because from that accelerated frame point “P” is observed fixed to the LP (non-spinning about center) and the RV is now observed spinning about ftop_t.
Thus reference frames do matter & need to be accounted for in firld of relativity for which ftop_t does not account correctly in many desmos applications.
The “Spinners” define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as movement in which the same side of the orbiting body remains oriented towards a distant star, throughout.
The “Non-Spinners” define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as movement in which the same side of the orbiting body remains oriented towards the inside of the orbit, throughout.
Axial rotation then has to be kept separate from the motion described in the above definitions, in each case.
If you think it through, you should see how this transcends reference frames.
And ftop. In Astrophysics when the rotational speed (axial spin rate) of a celestial object is measured and published, it is always wrt to inertial space of the stars. Thus it is unambiguous and univerally understood.
Your alpha is not that, since it is a rrelative speed.
And again, from the physics POV, the standard Orbit has no rotation rate specified. It is just the path of the CM.
Why is that?
Because Newtons law of gravity, when solved as Newton first did, for the orbit of a spherical planet, the path thru space of CM is found to be an ellipse. And no orientational change is found. A planet can have spin and this has no impact on orbit.
The idea that the planet may or may not be tidally locked and have a 1:1 or 1:2 resonance with the orbit was not part of his analysis.
Ball4 continues to link to something that proves him wrong. In the Desmos link you keep posting, the object is orbiting the central point with the same face always oriented towards the center of revolution. There are two sliders to control the motion of the object. Only the external axis rotation slider is moving. Thus the object is only rotating about the external axis, not about its internal axis. The internal axis rotation slider is not moving!
The accelerated frame internal (relative to its own) axis rotation slider is not moving from zero since it shows the moon has orbital momentum but as ftop_t writes: “Not relative to its own axis.” in the accelerated frame motion that internal axis slider controls.
Relativity is hard; neither ftop_t nor DREMT can deal with relativity correctly but Nate shows them it can be done.
All from the inertial reference frame:
Only the external axis rotation slider is moving. Thus the object is only rotating about the external axis, not about its internal axis. The internal axis rotation slider is not moving!
Steve Samuels
Oooooooh…
I’m sincerely afraid you’ve just put your finger in a hornet’s nest.
J.-P. D.
Steve, whatever would happen to the moon after the Earth is removed, whether it spun on its own axis or not, does not change the fact that it is not rotating on its own axis now.
A ball on a string being whirled about your head is not rotating on its own axis, it is rotating about an axis that is external to the ball. Even Bindidon would agree with that. Yet when the string is cut, the ball does indeed rotate on its own axis upon release. As Tesla put it "in angular motion the axial rotation is nothing more than an abstract conception; in rectilinear movement it is a positive event".
By the way, this is about the twentieth time this exact same point has been raised.
I hope you are a lawyer and not part of any scientfic enterprise. You are trying to make a syntactical argument, not a physical one.
You either don’t understand the basic notion of frame of reference (which is indeed an abstract conception), or you are just a troll who needs a new hobby.
SS
OK, I acknowledge your concession.
“in angular motion the axial rotation is nothing more than an abstract conception; in rectilinear movement it is a positive event”
Good example of Tesla failing to explain a contradictory fact, so he just declares it ‘abstract’, whatever that means.
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/famous-scientific-illusions
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation-follow-up
As the quote above shows, you seem unable to pull a rational, convincing argument out of these articles.
This suggests you are simply making another Appeal to Authority.
Troll Nate, you have never been able to understand a rational, convincing argument.
This suggests that you are simply an idiot.
You mean like where you claim the Moon is rotating, then claim it has no angular momentum??
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/#comment-607334
Clearly your notion of what is rational, is not rational.
My quote was from the third article, by the way…
Thank you for clearly stating the change & updating the datasets.
But..
Having the various sources of data (ocean, land, air, satelite, models, whatever) using different baseline periods is annoying & makes comparisons much harder.
I wish they would all used the same baseline period and stick to it to make life a lot easier. I know some data sets start at different times but this moving the goalposts allows less scrutiny of changing data (so called corrections in other data sets).
+1. I really wish everyone would just standardize on one period. One problem with UAH, RSS, and others is that their datasets begin in 1979 so the period would have to be after that. But since most (all?) temperature datasets have data at least back to 1979 it seems like everyone could standardize on 1981-2010.
Yes and just use that baseline for the foreseeable future.
Exactly.
I don’t understand why RSS did not move, like did UAH, from the old 1979-1998 baseline to WCO’s standard.
The same holds of course for all surface providers, with the notable exception of Japan’s Met Agency, which did that many years ago (their grid data, however, still is based on 1971-2000).
J.-P. D.
I see some commenters being irritated by the fact that the new monthly anomalies do not equally differ for each month.
Bellman got it right.
By using, in Roy Spencer’s data sets for the atmospheric layers LT, MT, TP and LS, the anomaly files and the climatology file, we can reconstruct the absolute data, and generate absolute time series together with the corresponding 12 month baseline for the current reference period.
For LT these are the files tltmonamg.1978_6.0 till tltmonamg.2020_6.0 (anomalies), and tltmonacg_6.0 (current climatology data for 1981-2010), unitl now located in the directory
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/
*
The old 12 month baseline for 1981-2010 is, in C:
-10.11
-10.04
-9.85
-9.43
-8.83
-8.18
-7.86
-8.04
-8.68
-9.37
-9.88
-10.08
If I made no errors, the new 12 month baseline for 1991-2020 should now be:
-9.97
-9.88
-9.72
-9.31
-8.70
-8.05
-7.73
-7.92
-8.51
-9.21
-9.75
-9.96
The difference between 1991-2020 and 1981-2010 then is
0.14
0.16
0.13
0.12
0.12
0.13
0.13
0.12
0.17
0.16
0.13
0.12
If we now finally consider the absolute values for 2020
2020 1 263.60
2020 2 263.86
2020 3 263.77
2020 4 264.10
2020 5 264.87
2020 6 265.39
2020 7 265.72
2020 8 265.53
2020 9 265.04
2020 10 264.32
2020 11 263.80
2020 12 263.34
we then see how the anomalies differ, depending of the reference period chosen resp. the 12 month baseline generated out of it.
J.-P. D.
Sorry, the months for 2020 were posted in K; here are they in C:
-9.55
-9.29
-9.38
-9.05
-8.28
-7.76
-7.43
-7.62
-8.11
-8.83
-9.35
-9.81
binny…”If I made no errors, the new 12 month baseline for 1991-2020 should now be:”
I wonder if you are ever going to understand that the numbers are not about statistics, they are about physical phenomena in the atmosphere, surface and oceans. All of those numbers are based on physical phenomena and not on the blind number crunching you do in your Excel spreadsheets.
Due to the complexity of the atmospheric interface with the surface/oceans and the vastness and turbulent nature of both, it is difficult to extract meaningful numbers to represent the reality. In fact, it’s likely that a global average has no meaning. Therefore, any statistical analysis has to be even more vague.
Ask yourself what is going on in the real world to produce such data so that when presenting an apparently concise statistical analysis you can offer a disclaimer that all of your analyses are ballpark figures that likely have no accuracy, let alone meaning.
Having said that, NOAA and their kinder, NASA GISS and Had-crut, are playing statistical games and have no interest in what is going on in the real world and what has transpired. Their goal all along has been to alter the temperature record to support the anthropogenic theory.
Ha ha ha ha haaah…
Robertson the dumbie spouts one more time his absolutely ignorant trash.
Weiter so!
J.-P. D.
Robertson
” All of those numbers are based on physical phenomena and not on the blind number crunching you do in your Excel spreadsheets. ”
If you had a brain below your skull, and a bit of experience out of some real professional life, you would have understood that all numbers here come directly from UAH’s data, publicly accessible in
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/
and not out of any alleged ‘blind number crunching’.
How is it possible to be so dumb?
J.-P. D.
My apologies. Gordon always has a hissy fit every time Roy presents new numbers. It is getting worse – he now has no faith in numbers at all. He thinks they are a cunning device to confuse and enslave everybody.
Time to up his medications.
Aha!
The bumbling green-eyed psychobabbler is not extinct after all!
Pity.
Ah, Swenson! Please go back to your cell.
That is, the cell labelled Mike Flynn.
I sincerely hope that the UAH team will save, for all layers of the V6 revision, the current anomalies with the 1981-2010 climatology, and create a new tree for all data generated wrt the monthly means of 1991-2020…
J.-P. D.
I agree with this. There should be a reference to the start of the satellite era. Otherwise, there will be claims the new magnitude delta is misleading. And before you respond. Yes. I understand the trend remains the same.
Regardless the reference period chosen to compute a 12 month baseline and corresponding anomalies out of UAH’s absolute grid data, one thing remains equal: the absolute values!
https://tinyurl.com/gzw9qqoi (grrr, again the bloody ‘d c’)
Unless, of course, something wrong is detected a posteriori in their construction.
J.-P. D.
I have been on this blog since it started , the early charts were totally different including the zero line in a completely different place ,
It has evolved since , you newbees just don’t know that
Yes, the length of the baseline period had to increase, at least until there was 30 years of data. There is no reason why the length of the baseline could not increase to 40 years. But there is *no* justification for translating the 30 year baseline period. And no, that has not happened before. The 80s were always included in the baseline.
Where be the baseline?
It matters naught. Yards, Meters, or Cubits, the distance between two points remains the same.
Baseline isn’t a measurement either; just an arbitrary standard. The big deal is the difference between start and end points. 0.5C (or K)
Big La Nina predicted for the fall.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif
Except only NOAA and NASA are predicting this. The other half dozen or so are not.
R,
And?
Do you really think that the future is determined by vote?
Are you only pretending to be stupid?
It would be clear to any intelligent person that I am pointing out that the future is not determined by one or two predictions. I made no inference of my my own. Do you qualify?
R,
The future is not determined by any number of predictions, is it?
Try a different way of trolling.
Maybe condescension might make you appear more intelligent.
Or pointing out the blindingly obvious.
Evan when I agree that ‘the future is not determined by vote’, you choose to be disagreeable. Why is that?
It is always astonishing to see that while NOAA is permanently discredited for calculating excessively high temperature anomalies, they are rated positively when they show something that can be interpreted as … cooling.
Ah! Comme le monde est simple pour certains…
J.-P. D.
It seems people did not understand the point in asking about the different amounts by which each month fell under the readjustment.
The point is to enquire why Dr Spencer chose not to make the sensible choose to expand the size of the baseline period to 40 years to reduce the effect of random variability that lead to this issue, instead choosing to make the politically expedient but statistically non-sensical choice of merely shifting the baseline.
“…sensible choice …”
R,
If you think people dont understand you, maybe you should learn how to communicate effectively.
In any case, why should anybody care what an anonymous commenter opines?
Do you care what I think? No?
Why is that?
“Do you care what I think?” is equivalent to “do you care what Stevie Wonder sees?”
R,
And? Just changing words to suit yourself is characteristic of alarmist fanatics.
As in claiming that reducing the rate of cooling is equivalent to heating.
Your efforts at trolling leave a bit to be desired. You need more practice.
I’ll try to pay more attention to your mastery of the art of trolling – just in case I need it one day.
Dr Sepncer, what is the rationale for changing the baseline, and for doing it every 10 years?
The low point on the graph is -0.7C. The high point on the graph is 0.9C. That might mean the expectation is the anomaly is more likely to go higher than the maximum record of 0.7K than falling below the minimum record 0.68K
Firstly, you can’t determine probabilities from looking only at extreme values.
Secondly, why does this qualify as a rationale for changing the baseline?
R,
What probabilities are you talking about? Not concerning the future, I hope.
That would just be silly, wouldnt it?
“expectation” … duh
R,
What do you mean –
* expectation … duh *
Are you intellectually challenged? Or just plain stupid?
Is it really so difficult to read the comment I was relying to?
The little ankle-biting dog is back, barking and barking and barking …
Oh Noes! Will that never end?
The probability/expectation is that the warming trend will continue into the future. The trend since 1979 is 0.14K per decade …
The rationale for changing the baseline now is to stick with a ten year update rather than having to update as result of another El Nino peak that goes higher than the graph allows.
I am guessing but the rationale would make sense.
In any graphing tool, scale is adjustable. It is not a reason for changing the baseline.
Ken
You write amazing things.
A decade ago, UAH’s reference period was 1979-1998.
Here you see one of the last graphs produced out of UAH data according to that elder period:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_Jan_10.jpg
As you can see, the top coordinate on the y-axis was at that time… 1.2.
One more time, I see that Skeptics have a very static view on the world around them.
J.-P. D.
* -0.68K
It is important to correctly assess the average height of the tropopause in winter. Interestingly, during the SSW, with the increase in temperature in the upper troposphere, the temperature at the surface drops.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_JFM_NH_2021.png
Rob can you just tell people how much the baseline went up by.
I am sure even our least mathematically inclined contributors could do a simple addition.
The issue is that the baseline has increased by different amounts for each month of the year. Although a small fraction of this will be due to seasonal effects (the hemispheres are not identical), the majority will be due to randomness.
Dr Spencer has missed an opportunity to increase the robustness of the data by taking a longer baseline for the purpose of reducing this random variation. Instead he has opted for a statistically purposeless baseline shift, with the sole aim of misleading the likes of Salvatore who are unable or unwilling to understand the concept of a baseline.
R,
Have you added mindreading to your list of superpowers?
You certainly excel at appearing condescending and patronising! If jumping to conclusions was an Olympic pursuit, you could no doubt try for gold.
However, you might really be a common or garden variety gullible alarmist acolyte. Can you demonstrate otherwise? No?
No surprise there.
Thanks for covering me in spittle.
R,
No. You havent mastered mindreading yet.
Nor predicting the future by rigorous examination of the past.
Ho ho ho.
Would someone lend me a towel.
R,
Are you incontinent, or do you suffer from uncontrollable dribbling?
Are you able to wipe yourself clean, or do you need help?
By the way, how are you going with the GHE description you were going to copy and paste?
Data from the last 30 years are suitable for the era of decline in solar activity.
https://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/webform/monitor.gif
https://i.ibb.co/HxVRpw5/number-of-c-m-and-x-clas-1.png
https://www.spaceweatherlive.com/en/solar-activity/solar-cycle.html
Dr Spencer
It looks strange that September 2020 jumped 0,17 C when you changed base period but December 2020 only jumped 0,12 C.
Is there a calculation error hidden somewhere?
That’s a good question.
I thought
Shifting the baseline forward by 10 years changes a third of the data for working out each monthly average over the (new) 30 years. The difference between 30 years of averaged Junes and 30 years of averaged Julys is pretty much inevitably going to be different.
The data undergoes revision throughout each year, and often there are relative changes to anomalies.
Might be worth reading about how the baseline is calculated.
https://tinyurl.com/yyzjrktz
b,
Ah, I see.
* The climatology of a variable, for example 2m air temperature, is the variables condition averaged over a period of time. *
Are you really trying to redefine an average to be a climatology?
Are you delusional, or just really, really, stupid?
Swenson aka Flynn
There is (at least right now) only one stupid person writing on this blog, and that’s definitively you.
J.-P. D.
Swenson/MF has been with the asylum now for many years. He is housed in the “delusions” ward. That is why he uses the word “delusional” so often.
Please don’t upset him by mentioning facts.
Gee. All I did was ask somebody a question.
As usual, no answer, just the usual intellectually vacant ad homs from the Binny and the psychobabbler.
Are you still claiming that trends continue forever, Binny? You do realise that 0.5 C per decade is 5 C per century, 50 C per millennium, and a whopping 50,000 C per million years!
What do you think will stop the trend? A change in the laws of physics?
Or maybe you think that CO2 will exhaust its magical heating powers (run out of phlogiston, perhaps?), and the trend will come to an end.
Another possibility might be that the GHE is specious nonsense.
Maybe Binny and the psychobabbler should get together, and try to figure out how sunlight can heat the Earth to 50,000 C, if Binnys calculations are correct.
Ho ho ho!
Haykan
No there is no calculation error.
See explanation in the comment
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/#comment-605765
J.-P. D.
OK, thanks.
Håkan
Sorry for having misspelled your first name.
It’s always the same problem with the blog’s antiquated scanner.
To get such UTF8 characters displayed right, I put them into
https://mothereff.in/html-entities
and paste the result here.
J.-P. D.
Thanks for the spelling effort.
If solar stays low this decade will very likely end the global warming trend. It will be abrupt when it occurs.
If it does happen I would only be 10 years off.
Salvatore
What do you think about this paper?
Prediction of Solar Cycle 25
Leif Svalgaard
Stanford University
SORCE 2018, Lake Arrowhead, CA
March 23, 2018
https://www.leif.org/research/Prediction-of-SC25.pdf
I know nearly nothing in this area.
J.-P. D.
You just need to follow the current WSO Stanford data.
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Polar.gif
On the Sun, we have one faint spot to the northeast and a coronal hole that can cause a magnetic storm at high latitudes.
https://i.ibb.co/fYLFxVf/AR-CH-20210202-hres.png
Leif I disagree with on everything.
Hmmmh
Is that all you can say about it?
That, Salvatore, is equal to saying nothing.
J.-P. D.
Yes because I think is is a jerk.
COR – he is a jerk with an agenda.
SDP – if having an agenda makes someone a jerk, wouldn’t that make you a jerk? After all, you admitted that you are not objective (literally, w/o the need for paraphrasing).
Salvatore,
The Wilcox Solar Observatory
http://wso.stanford.edu/gifs/Dipall.gif
http://wso.stanford.edu/
As far as what the sun may or may not do it is a guess. My guess is activity stay on the low side but I am not objective.
That is what I want.
Already, the first 13 months of the 2020s is averaging 0.175 ahead of first 13 months of 2010s, and 0.217 ahead of the 2010s as a whole.
Easterbrook was saying the same thing in the 90’s…temperature went up instead.
Easterbrook seems to have finally gone silent after decades of failed predictions.
In fact 2025 marks the year when he originally predicted warming would resume after 25 years of cooling.
Sea surface temperature is also 0.12 C, compared to the average 1981-2010.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
Would you please link to the data set that this graph is based on.
Ask the author.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/
Author? Interesting choice of word.
Also interesting is the fact that you trust the graph without knowing what data it is based on. On what basis have you determined that it is reliable?
Rob
ren very probably has not a bit of an idea of where to find Levi Cowan’s source.
Me thinks it might be here:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_current.pdf
There will be some link to data sets therein.
J.-P. D.
As I have said when the cooling comes it will be quick and fast.
Quick AND fast?
I think he means any cooling will be brief, followed by a resumption of warming.
In fact, if you blink, you may even miss it.
Studentb,
You are right. It did get cool overnight. That Salvatore is a genius!
studentb
A few minutes ago, I blinked just at the time my lady was looking at the temperature forecast for Verhoyansk, Northeastern Siberia:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D092Q9pZ902Hib_QChj6meDzrG3TFrhk/view
As I stopped blinking, the picture was away.
Things happen!
But I nonetheless confess that I wouldn’t like to live there:
RSM00024266 ___VERHOJANSK_________________ 2021 1 18 -57.8 (C)
J.-P. D.
This is going to be a massive stratospheric intrusion in the northern US.
https://i.ibb.co/DVpdnqv/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f120.png
https://i.ibb.co/qRKYP4w/gfs-toz-NA-f120.png
ren
Woooooaah!
I look at your post, alarmist as usual, and recall this harsh 2014 winter in the Great Lakes:
https://tinyurl.com/1o7ya84q
Compared with this year:
https://tinyurl.com/54uomsfm
Frogs say in such a situation: ” Il n’y a pas photo”.
Do you remember that you promised us a long, long winter this year?
Temperatures tomorrow in Switzerland and Austria (i.e. in the Alps):
https://tinyurl.com/1qmjlaxf
What the heck does that have to do with winter, ren?
J.-P. D.
You are very impatient.
ren
Jasne oczywiście. Do zobaczenia za cztery tygodnie.
J.-P. D.
All ’bout that base, ’bout that base, no troubles…
Nate
Yeah, good catch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV5WqRnFejI
J.-P. D.
Ha!
According to Dr. Spencer’s data, the tropics have been getting cooler during the past year. I know ren has been mentioning the Southern Hemisphere for quite some time. Will the Northern Hemisphere follow?
Given that the ENSO phenomenon occurs in the tropical Pacific, this is hardly surprising.
R,
Your answer to the question * Will the Northern Hemisphere follow? * is * Given . . . hardly surprising. *
Are you trying to demonstrate stupidity through obscurity, or vice versa?
If you just dont understand the question, just ask for clarication. It seems fairly clear to me.
“This is hardly surprising” is a response to a statement not a question.
Please ask me if you require any more assistance with English comprehension.
In January, the US (48 states) was plus 0.36. In February it will be much less.
https://i.ibb.co/VQ48Mby/gfs-T2ma-us-25.png
What ever the trend is that is what most jump on . That is the easy thing to do ,but just try to predict a reverse hardly anyone is going to do that because that is entirely another matter.
I am predicting a reverse.
Here is a diversion from the climate discussion for those who enjoy mathematical problems.
A staircase has n stairs.
You are permitted to climb the staircase 1 or 2 steps at a time.
For example, you might:
– climb the entire staircase one step at a time
– climb the entire staircase two steps at a time (if n is even)
– climb the staircase using any combination of 1s and 2s, eg. 2 1 1 2 1 2 2 …
Explain why the number of different ways of climbing the staircase is the (n+1)th Fibonacci number.
(Assume the first two terms of the Fibonacci sequence are 1, 1)
(There is no reason for a certain hater of learning and thinking to leave comment here.)
Take your useless chaff to some facebook girls chit chat page
Eben
What Rob presents here is 100 times more interesting than your eternal, boring youtube garbage.
And you are invited to spare us your primitive and impolite alt-right behavior.
Why don’t you post your garbage at Breitbart, Eben?
J.-P. D.
Induction. If w(n) is the number of ways of getting to n steps, then to get to the n+1, you could either
1. take 1 step from the nth stair, so w(n) ways after getting to the nth step, or
2. Take 2 steps from the (n-1)th stair; there were w(n-1) ways of getting there
So w(n+1)=w(n)+w(n-1)
Can two ice cube warm the thermometer more than one?
Will I be warmer in half an igloo, or should I finish it?
Will you pervert the scenario, or will you face reality?
bob,
Which half – the top half or the bottom half?
Get a refund from Troll U. You cant even do a good job of trolling.
Dimwit.
Which one of you is the bigger pervert?
Inquiring minds need to know.
Hi Nick,
Just the man I need to speak to!
First though, 100% correct, although you technically need to go through the motions of working out the two base cases.
Regarding your global temperature anomaly map:
https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/pages/latest/NCEP/GLncep.html
I see it hasn’t been updated since Jan 15. Will that be updated again soon?
I’m sure you can recognise from the responses which people I was not referring to in my opening sentence, and who I might have been referring to in my final sentence. They are like Stepford wives, having been programmed for only one purpose, and have never been instructed how to react to climate-neutral discussions.
R,
More stupidity through obscurity?
On the other hand, maybe you are dim enough to think that anybody actually cares about your opinions. All the opinion in the world (plus a few dollars) will probably buy you a cup of coffee.
Here’s an opinion from a distinguished professor at Penn State –
* Always keep in mind that atmospheric radiation moves at the speed of light and that all objects are always radiating. Moreover, as soon as an object absorbs radiation and increases its temperature, its emitted radiation will increase. Thus energy is not “trapped” in the atmosphere and greenhouse gases do not “trap heat.” We will see instead that greenhouse gases act like another radiation energy source for Earth’s surface. *
Another from a different professor, different university –
* Carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases have three or more atoms and frequencies that correspond to infrared radiation emitted by Earth. Oxygen and nitrogen, with just two atoms in their molecules, do not absorb infrared radiation. *
Oh dear. Opinions. Arent they grand. Have you an opinion about whether GHGs trap heat?
Or are you just another fact free unscientific alarmist troll, trying to appear intelligent, but failing miserably.
By the way, how is your search for a useful GHE description going? Not well, I assume.
Oh well, maybe you could try for another distraction, to try to keep the CO2 GHE illusion from collapsing. Good luck!
Thanks for your input Ms Stepford.
The medications are not working. His blood pressure is through the roof.
The trolls have nothing better to offer than obscure references and pointless psychobabble.
Ask for something useful, such as a GHE description, and . . .
Nothing. So much for alarmist non-science.
The little Flynn dog gets more aggressive every day, his endless barking is so terribly boring and annoying.
Perhaps he is now suffering from chronic diarrhea.
Can’t anyone save us from this nuisance?
J.-P. D.
Why doesn’t Dr Spencer ban people like him, as is done on most climate blogs?
This person’s childish comments are deliberately hindering any rational discussion, and deliberately inciting others to behave like him.
Rob
You then would have to ban a lot of people.
Mr Spencer only bans those who keep in destructive, aggressive contradiction to himself.
J.-P. D.
The benefit of allowing trolls like Rob, “Nurse Ratchet”, Nate, and Bindidon, is that people need to see what types are out there. These trolls reject reality and are anti-science. Other people need to learn what the trolls are about.
“These trolls reject reality and are anti-science.”
Run it thru the Clintspeak translator:
“These intelligent posters accept reality and are advocates for science”
Hi Rob,
Every year after Jan 1 I have some trouble with my NCEP program. I thought I had a complete fix this year. Apparently not; I’ll check.
Thanks Nick. I always thought you just went away for a holiday in January. Just pointing out that the daily data is coming through on your site, but your map of the globe is not updating.
R,
Nice try at diversion. Discussing the climate is tolerably pointless. It is the average of weather, by definition.
Maybe you could try to unearth the strangely absent description of the GHE – the one which leads to a testable hypothesis.
As to your diversion, I have to point out that assuming the first two terms of the Fibonacci sequence are 1, 1, is about as silly as assuming that slow cooling is really heating. The Fibonacci sequence starts 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, and so on – for good reason. Ill let you figure out the reason.
When you copy from elsewhere, try to understand what it is you are copying,
You can look up the solution on the Internet.
“Discussing the climate is tolerably pointless.”
Yet you seem to spend a lot of time doing just that.
Why do you bother ?
s,
Read what I said. What part dont you understand?
You have to wonder at someone who treats mathematics as a set of inflexible definitions to be rote learned, rather than a thinking process that merely requires your choice of definition to be understood by all you communicate with, then uses their rigid definitions as a pawn in a pathetic power play.
R,
As I said, you should try to understand something you found on the internet.
Definitions are there for a purpose. Otherwise every idiot would be redefining things to suit themselves. For example, in the US state of Indiana, in 1897, a Bill was proposed to legally set the value of Pi to one of four rational approximations. Luckily, the bill was defeated.
Maybe you are annoyed that you have been caught out in an elementary mistake.
How are you going with your definition of the GHE? Doesnt fit your thinking process?
Poor diddums. Try political science, or social science. Or climate science. Then you can define anything to be anything you want!
Cooling is heating. Water vapour heats and cools simultaneously. Michael Mann is a Nobel Laureate. You actually know what you are talking about.
See how easy it is? Just pretend reality doesnt apply to you.
Good luck with that.
Please explain how Nick’s proof is affected by the choice of definition.
And BTW, you are wrong. 0 is given the notation F_0, making it the “zeroth” Fibonacci number. You can also define the “negative first” Fibonacci number, etc.
F_1 = 1 and F_2 = 1, that is … the first and second Fibonacci number.
Live by the definitions, die by the definitions.
R,
Still wrong.
Nick has not provided a proof. Your definition of a proof would make a trained mathematician blanch.
Keep digging.
Maybe you need to visit a few other sites which explain the solutions to this problem
Here’s a clue –
No. I changed my mind. Why should I help you?
HAHAHAHA – now you’re a denier of mathematics!!!
It is an OUTLINE of a proof. At least you’ve given up claiming that terms 1 and 2 are 1 and 1.
R,
You wrote earlier –
* Please explain how Nick’s proof is affected by the choice of definition. *
You now say its not a proof, its an outline of a proof. Or maybe its neither?
You assert that I have given up claiming something or other – maybe you could quote me instead of just making stuff up?
What is a denier of mathematics? Mathematics exists. Maybe you coukd name someone who denies this, but I doubt it.
In the meantime, you might as well keep up your demented cackling. Your comment is largely incomprehensible.
Carry on. How about explaining why nobody has managed to make a thermometer hotter by increasing the amount of CO2 between the thermometer and a heat source?
Time for redefinitions, perhaps?
Feck you’re a baby.
Is that the best you can do?
Face reality. Its your choice to act like a dimwitted fact free alarmist, my choice to point this out.
Seems fair to me.
Entropic man
I did find an article (from 2010) that addresses my question I asked on a previous thread about the change in latent heat surface loss with increasing temperature for the Water Vapor Feedback.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2010JD013949
If you look at Figure 3 of this article it certainly looks like Water Vapor Feedback is not nearly as strong as current thinking makes it (can almost double warming of CO2 alone).
It shows that the increased evaporation (latent heat loss) for each degree K is more than the gain from increased radiant forcing until up to 3.5 Watt/m^2 of forcing.
If modern models assume the water vapor feedback is highly positive that could explain why so many model runs are on the hot side.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/02/02/climate-model-failure/
I think it is very necessary for future political action on Climate Change to get this water feedback correct.
Two articles now are showing that evaporative cooling is quite significant in a warming world and cannot be ignored as it is a strong negative feedback.
Over the last 140 years the direct forcing from CO2 has been 5.35ln(411/280)=2.05W/m^2.
Using the usual estimated warming effect of 3.7W/degree, the 1.2C warming since 1880 would require forcing of 1.2*3.7=4.44W/m^2.
That is a feedback of 4.44-2.05=2.39W/m^2.
If the feedback isn’t a more active water cycle it must be something else. Any candidates?
More light reading.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com doi pdf
Ent asks: “Any candidates?”
Well, the most obvious thing is your assumptions and estimates are wrong.
I am always wondering about an anomaly (0,49) in winter in the Arctic.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JFM_NH_2021.png
Ok, so the current value is actually 0.24 relative to the old baseline?
January has gone down by 0.14, so it’s 0.26.
Miles Jacobs
Not quite. The difference for the January month in the baselines for 1991-2020 resp. 1981-2010 is +0.14.
So the current value is actually 0.26 relative to the old baseline.
J.-P. D.
For all visitors who are irritated by UAH’s abrupt change of the reference period, here are the offsets you have to add to monthly anomalies wrt 1991-2020 when you want to obtain the ‘old’ anomaly wrt 1981-2010:
Jan: 0.14
Feb: 0.16
Mar: 0.13
Apr: 0.12
May: 0.12
Jun: 0.13
Jul: 0.13
Aug: 0.12
Sep: 0.17
Oct: 0.16
Nov: 0.13
Dec: 0.12
J.-P. D.
Just pointing out that as these numbers are based only on 2020 figures at the moment, there could be some rounding errors. The actual numbers might vary by 0.01 from these.
Rob
No, they are not: I constructed the baseline wrt the mean of 1991-2020 out of an absolute time series, itself generated out of UAH’s 2.5 degree grid data valid till Dec 2020 (anomalies plus climatology).
The addition of the numbers I gave above indeed may lead to rounding errors; but this is due to the fact that UAH publishes data with 2 digits after the decimal point.
Even if I would have given the data with 3 datdp
0.142
0.160
0.128
0.121
0.123
0.132
0.129
0.125
0.166
0.161
0.134
0.119
that wouldn’t have solved the problem (and this list would even still not be quite correct, as the differences were calculated out of absolute data generated with only 2 datdp, he he).
We are lay(wo)men here, and hoefully all won’t care about such infinitesimal stuff!
J.-P. D.
UAH does provide 3 decimals places for the monthly global mean here. This is what I usually load up into Excel.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/tltglhmam_6.0.txt
bdgwx
You misunderstood me here. I was speaking about the generation of UAH time series out of UAH’s 2.5 degree grid data, for which until now I saw no need to have more than 2 datdp.
Anyway, OK: tltglhmam_6.0.txt has 3 datdp, but… it is a global mean.
What do you do with it if you want to look at the Arctic?
And what do I do if I want to look at the data for 5N-5S–170W-120W?
J.-P. D.
Oh yeah…no…I totally get the gridded data is only 2 decimal places. But to calculate the offsets I don’t think you need the gridded data. I get very close to what you posted above with some minor differences. For example, I get 0.161 vs 0.160 for February when using the 3 decimal place file.
” I totally get the gridded data is only 2 decimal places. ”
But… that is not the problem, bdgwx.
When you process data consisting of 5 digit integers like in the UAH grid, nobody hinders you to put the average of thousands of them in 64bit floating point numbers!
No idea what you really mean here. But I will by now add one or two decimal places when generating series out of UAH data, that’s all.
But again: for those who want to consider zonal or regional UAH data published from now on, but with respect to the old reference period, that will be of no help as long as UAH itself doesn’t increase the precision.
J.-P. D.
Oh…gotcha…I’m following you now.
My point was precisely the effect of publishing rounded figures. Now that the full data set is available, and using only the data showing 2 dp, it turns out that August should have been 0.13. I haven’t done the calculation on the data with 3 dp.
Also, and being even more pedantic, the new baseline has increased the trend by 0.13%.
Not a big deal at all, but perhaps Dr Spencer should not have made the claim that the shift in baseline has not affected the trend.
I still don’t understand why he would have not chosen to extend to a 40-year baseline.
R,
Shall I add that to the list of things you dont understand?
Maybe it would be easier to list the things you do understand. A much shorter list.
Dont agree?
Off you go, then. List the things you do understand. Be prepared to defend your choices.
The lack of self-awareness by Son of Swen of how boorish, boring and socially inept he is beggars belief.
R,
I see.
You still dont understand, and cant understand why you dont understand. Is that it?
Maybe you also cant understand why I cant be bothered to feel offended or annoyed by silly attempts at gratuitous insults by an anonymous person.
Unless you have some hidden super power, of course! Can you unleash lightning bolts? Then I would be afraid, very afraid.
Even better, flap a copy of a testable GHE explanation at me!
Oh, the horror!
Been there done that and you admitted I had one.
Not doing that again.
And his response is to continue the childish boorishness.
bob,
Dont be silly. If you had one, you would flash it about like mad.
Trying to convince others that you have produced the mythical GHE document, but are now keeping it secret, is unlikely to succeed.
R,
If you need some help with how to be gratuitously insulting, let me know.
First precept – it is a waste of time trying to insult someone who declines to feel insulted or offended. Someone like me, for example.
All you achieve is making yourself look like an impotent idiot.
So … someone who has no soul.
Swennson,
Now you are just a backpedaling liar.
Why can’t you admit you can’t argue your way out of a paper bag?
A wet paper bag.
The data for January is up now and I compared the two sets for the North Polar region. On average, the mean change for the data was increased by 0.28 deg C. The monthly differences were all over the map. I found that one would need to add the following to the new version to match the old averaging period:
Jan: 0.347
Feb: 0.291
Mar: 0.237
Apr: 0.400
May: 0.322
Jun: 0.266
Jul: 0.130
Aug: 0.173
Sep: 0.236
Oct: 0.285
Nov: 0.289
Dec: 0.153
These data show that January and April are somewhat cooler in the new data set while July, August and December are warmer than average. It would be of interest to know why these differences in seasonal values appeared. As Roy noted, the trends in the two sets are the same.
—————-
meaning jan deviation would be +.26 not +.12 if using 1981-2010 data. Correct?
Si!
thanks. That puts it more into perspective.
I am going to continue with that 1981-2010 baseline. It is ridiculous to go to 1991-2020.
Salvatore
To say ‘It is ridiculous…’ imho is exaggerated, and also a little unfair.
Simply because we all should have been thankful to UAH to have introduced so early WHO’s recommendation for 1981-2010 (their previous recommendation was 1971-2000).
Look at Hadley Centre/CRU, they still stay on 1961-1990, or GISS on 1951-1980, and RSS still did not leave its antiquated 1979-1998 (used by UAH until 2010 or so).
The transition up to 1991-2020 at WHO is inevitable, as they always try to move forward, thus giving new developments the possibility to produce data comparable with elder providers by using departures from a common mean.
J.-P. D.
JD, I salute you for an intelligent comment. You don’t do that often. You should stick with the areas you have some experience in, rather than trying to pervert areas such as “orbital motion”.
Of course, if you want to be an idiot, you have that right.
“In addition, the results demonstrate the dominant role of both the air‐sea temperature difference and relative humidity over, for example, wind speed in reducing the evaporation change in climate models below the Clausius‐Clapeyron rate.”
This was the last sentence in the abstract of your Lorenz et al link.
It would seem that surface evaporation is considered in the models.
This time, the SSW will hit both the USA and Europe.
I warned.
https://i.ibb.co/k2vWBTc/ecmwf-mslpa-eu-6.png
https://i.ibb.co/16vG2Vg/ecmwf-T850a-eu-6.png
ren
People like you seem to see the world only through their ‘cooling’ pink glasses, and to ignore the rest.
While Northern Germany will have a few days below 10 C, the southern part of the country has been suffering from devastating floods for weeks.
That is thousand times worse than some few colder days, ren.
But that doesn’t seem to disturb you.
J.-P. D.
Unfortunately, I prefer warmth.
The Rhine is a dangerous river.
Wrong, ren.
Not the Rhine is the problem – not at all.
The problem is 100% located near its many tributaries.
It’s always bad to look at things you don’t know through the wrong side of the binoculars.
J.-P. D.
To tak jakby wytłumaczyć Wam, jak wygląda Pojezierze Mazurskie.
The area around the river Rhine in Cologne was flooded on Wednesday following snowmelt and heavy rainfall, causing disruption to shipping on the waterway.
Water could be seen pouring over the river banks, leaving surrounding paths and public benches almost completely submerged. On Tuesday the Cologne authorities reported a water level of 8.23 metres (27 feet), with that level expected to rise in the coming week.
Ships are blocked from sailing on the important trade route when the water level reaches over 8.3 metres (27.23 feet) around Cologne, as they are unable to fit under the bridges on the river, but most drivers have already stopped on safety grounds according to local media.
The Rhine has suffered numerous floods in recent decades. In 2018, its water level reportedly topped 9 metres (29.5 feet), leading to flooding of the historical city of Koblenz.
https://youtu.be/PljUwmK32Qw
Bindidon,
You’re right, the Rhine poured because of rain in the mountains.
Bindidon,
Heavy rain in the lower reaches of the Rhine shall not cease.
Above E. Swanson talked about UAH’s TLT weighting function.
LT = 1.538 * MT 0.548 * TP + 0.01 * LS
I was doing some analysis and was surprised by just how sensitive the warming trend is to even some changes to the weightings.
For example…
LT = 1.55 * MT 0.54 * TP – 0.01 * LS
…yields +0.1447C/decade.
But, out of curiosity I wanted to see which weights got UAH-LT to most closely correlate with the surface datasets. After a bit of experimentation I feel that UAH’s choices of 1.538, -0.548, and 0.01 actually provide the best month-to-month correlation. It is important to note, however, that UAH is already a terrible predictor of the month-to-month surface values and obviously the overall warming trend of the various surface datasets including GISS, NOAA, BEST, Had.CRUT, ERA, TempLS (Nick Stokes), etc. My point is only that I find no obvious fault with UAH’s selection of the weighting values.
My biggest concern is just how sensitive LT warming trend is to the choice of values.
And yes, I’m aware that LT is not really meant to be a proxy for the surface temperature. But the reality is that everyone treats as such.
I should point out that I’m applying the weighting function to the monthly global mean. In that regard I’m implicitly using the same function for all grid cells. It would be cool if someone could do the experiment with the gridded data and use different weighting functions for different regions to see what happens.
Bindidon…I know you like to work with the gridded data. Do you want to take a stab at deriving your own LT values from the MT, TP, and LS grids?
” Do you want to take a stab at deriving your own LT values from the MT, TP, and LS grids? ”
Sorry, no. I have so many things to do, e.g. improving my sea level corner, adding ‘GHCN V4’ to replace ‘GHCN daily’ over the long term, etc etc etc.
J.-P. D.
Oh… I forgot another job: the search for a contemporary German transcription or an English translation of Tobias Mayer’s wonderful work
https://www.e-rara.ch/download/pdf/913790?name=IV%20Abhandlung%20%C3%BCber%20die%20Umw%C3%A4lzung%20des%20Monds%20um%20seine%20Axe%20und%20die%20scheinbare%20Beweg
It’s not that simple to find one.
A Google Docs version exists, but it is not completely digitized, you can only search in it. Any trial to obtain even small parts of it in contemporary text form failed.
There is a book about Mayer’s work, written by a mathematician named Wepster, but it is behind paywall.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon,
I don’t know if this helps, but I found an indexed page of the work. In google Chrome, it gives me the option to translate each section after clicking on it, the choice to translate appearing in a pop-up at the top, and the text appearing at the bottom of the page.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ssd?id=nyp.33433003646902;seq=218
Thanks barry
Sounds pretty good at a first glance.
I will check the whole stuff tomorrow.
J.-P. D.
barry
Thanks again, but a quick look at the texts shows that it would be huge work to adapt the stuff in conmtemprary German (I mean here only the character set, not the language itself).
And that is the preliminary condition for an automated translation into English, by putting the adapted German text peace by peace in Google’s translation tool.
All that work would be discredited and denigrated anyway by the Ignoramusses.
J.-P. D.
Entropic,
I’ve always been confused by that 5.35 constant.
I first noticed it in IPCC TAR ( in a table on page 10 of chapter 6). I believe it came from multiple model runs reported in a paper published in 1998 ?
In the same table there’s another constant ….3.35…. submitted from WMO ( Hansen et al 1998).
I’ve always wondered why the higher value was chosen.
It seems to me that calculations of radiative forcing became a circular argument where the models start and end the process ?
Maz
A quick look at the document in question shows this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mJuzan0JdJvmg_jW8Y6mgLcAltRd0wAT/view
Did you REALLY overlook that there are indeed three rows with three different alpha constants in the table, but that these different constants must be put in relation to the three different formulas in which they are used?
Amazing.
J.-P. D.
You’ll find it discussed here
globalwarmingequation.info eqn derivation.pdf
and here.
http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=4697
Entropic man
Thanks, I had forgotten Clive Best’s article. Now bookmarked!
J.-P. D.
Ent and JD, it has been pointed out to you that the bogus equation is based on assumption and circular reasoning. You can believe it is “science”, but it is “belief”.
Clive Best appears to be delusional.
He is apparently unaware that heat accumulation or trapping in nonsensical.
He also seems to be unaware that all heat created on the Earths surface by any means escapes to space – never to be seen again. Regardless of wavelength. Any energy intercepted by the atmosphere is promptly re-radiated at the same or longer wavelengths. And, of course, bodies already emitting shorter wavelengths cannot absorb longer ones.
A simple example is the fact that liquid water cannot be warmed by the longer wavelengths emitted by ice, regardless of their intensity.
That is reality. No GHE. The only AGW is the ephemeral heat produced by man, in various forms. Let a fire go out, and the temperature in the vicinity drops. Simple.
Back to the delusional ward with you!
And take that tin foil hat with you.
BTW, did you know that “it has long been suspected that the government has been using satellites to read and control the minds of certain citizens. The use of aluminium helmets has been a common guerrilla tactic against the government’s invasive tactics.
Surprisingly, these helmets can in fact help the government spy on citizens by amplifying certain key frequency ranges reserved for government use.”
Go away, troll!
I believe the first appearance in literature was the Myhre 1998 publication.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/98GL01908
b,
Surely you jest!
Estimates (guesses) based on models (using guesses as parameters).
Here. What is the radiative forcing of a column of CO2 1 metre deep, with a 1 m2 surface normal to a heat source, when interposed between a heat source of 5000 K with a radiative intensity of 1000 W/m2, and a thermometer?
Feel free to ask for clarification of the obviously missing parameters.
Maybe you could look it up on the internet? Maybe it is specified in absolute terms in all those thousands of peer reviewed papers so beloved of alarmists. Proceed as you see fit.
Swenson – Be careful when driving you may fall off the edge of the planet.
G,
In other words, radiative forcing is a figment of the imagination.
I agree.
Bindidon, how much snow do you think will fall on sunday in Berlin?
No idea!
We had here during the last two weeks at best 5 cm in the sum, nothing of it lived longer than 2 days.
The snow must fall somewhere else…
You can see below.
https://www.windy.com/52.517/13.389?rain,52.134,13.389,8
Nothing of that happened, as is mostly the case for your forecasts.
J.-P. D.
You better look at the 10-day forecast.
https://www.windy.com/52.517/13.389?temp,52.134,13.389,8
Today’s snow in Berlin is just an incentive.
Once more and for the last time, ren: you asked for Berlin, and I answered for Berlin.
We are promised to experience up to 50 centimeter snow at our latitude band.
If that really happens, ren, then be sure I will agree a posteriori to these forcasts you literally inundate us with.
But… last weak already, we should have had -12 C with huge amonts of snow, and what did happen?
No snow, and poor -6 C at night, compared with 7 years ago, where we had not even one night above -10 C thru the entire February.
Yes the temperature can and does fall very quickly
https://notrickszone.com/2021/02/04/robust-measurements-show-the-northern-hemispheres-atmosphere-cooled-0-6c-in-5-years-60-years-ago/
The title of that blog continues to completely mislead readers. “Notrickszone” continues its tradition of twisting and omitting facts to present an agenda-driven view.
The very first paper it cites, it gets completely wrong. Notricks says that NH temperatures dropped by 0.6 C from 1958 to 1963. This is based on a 1973 paper. What is misleading? The fact that notricks makes it as if these are surface temps, and that this cooling is no longer apparent in the surface records.
The temperatures are of the atmosphere at 18km above sea level. They are stratospheric temps, which, by the way, are expected to cool under greenhouse warming.
So this wasn’t airbrushed out of the surface records at all, because thesae values are not surface temps. They’re not even lower troposhperic temps.
The misleading continues throughout the article. Notricks cites a paper that he says is about the US cooling at roughly the same time. But check the paper and it says that what is being examined is parts of the US that cooled in opposition to the rest of the country and the world. Local effects.
I went through a couple other papers and it’s the same, sordid story. Complete misrepresentation.
This is absolutely typical of the rubbish ‘science’ promulgated by this blogger. Go check it out if you want to make up yor own mind, and be sure to check the papers cited. If you have trouble getting the full versions, you can get all the ones listed on ‘notricks’ website here:
https://sci-hub.do/
Do not trust this blogger. They are full of shit.
I’ve seen that site literally photoshop graph/charts and alter them from how they originally appear in the publications. I’ve seen them attach graph/charts to their blog entries with the implication that they appear in the referenced publications, but I can’t find them anywhere in the original manuscripts. They frequently cite publications from predatory journals, misrepresent publications, and disseminate misinformation.
bdgwx, maybe you should clean up your own messes before you start attacking others.
“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.”
1) Where did I ever claim the S/B Law was bogus?
2) Where did I ever claim 231.7K for Earth’s temperature?
Clean up your own messes, you phony.
BGDWX is going to have to find another pseudonym. We’re on to him. These leftists don’t realize that no matter what pseudonym they use, their illogical, unscientific thought patterns give them away.
SPA, I think you have me confused with someone else. I’m not a leftist. And remember…I’m not the one that referred to a paper about the declining stratosphere temperature and misrepresented it as the surface temperature. That was Kenneth Richard and Pierre Gosselin on the NTZ site.
b,
So which bloggers would you trust unreservedly?
None?
I agree.
BTW, talking to yourself is a sign of madness.
Troll, go away!
barry
I completely agree with you about Gosselin’s TricksZone, as well as about Goddard aka Heller’s stuff, and, though being a lot more risible and inoffensive, about ‘iceage.info’.
Recently I read a guest post at WUWT, where one of these intentionally misleading and misrepresenting TricksZone stories were reblogged:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/01/24/study-shows-arctic-sea-ice-reached-lowest-point-on-modern-record-in-the-1940s-not-today/
This was really incredible: nowhere in the original source was this claim visible.
Gosselin and his acolyte simply analyzed some pictures and made a tricky story about them.
This is so brazen because WUWT’s mod Charles Rotter published the entire article!
And what makes it even more peppery: the original article’s really alarmist conclusions were simply ignored by Gosselin, and of course by the WUWT commenters, whose vast majority doesn’t even read the guest posts, let alone the articles these refer to.
Some people there detected the flaw, but were discredited and denigrated by a very aggressive commenter nicknamed ‘fred250’.
*
Six years ago, I analyzed some Heller claims concerning allegedly wrong adjustments made to GHCN V3’s unadjusted station data.
Some were correct, but a vast majority of them were not, and above all: Heller only complained about the 60% positive adjustments within the 7280 stations, but was all the time pretty silent concerning the remaining 40%.
J.-P. D.
Notrickszone gets nicely taken apart in this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LyMaRx7gIGY
Claims that 400 papers debunk AGW, but turns out that many of them actually endorse AGW.
That’s how ‘notricks’ rolls. Complete garbage site.
Tony Heller’s site, realclimatescience, is just as bad.
It actually does make a difference to trends when changing the baseline on a month by month basis. The relative position of anomalies change a bit when making averages for each month individually – the difference between the averages will change, therefore the difference between monthly anomalies will change. It won’t change trends much, barely enough to notice, but when the difference between August and September 2020 was 0.14 under the old baseline, and 0.10 under the new baseline, there will be some slight differences in trends.
barry
No, this is not the case: the trends for anomalies wrt 1991-2020 differs from those wrt 1981-2010 by… -0.00004 K / decade.
This is far below anything significant.
But an amazing detail with UAH’s absolute data, when reconstructed out of anomalies and climatology, it that it has a slightly higher trend than the anomalies.
Usually, we observe the contrary, due to the fact that departure for winter months have a higher trend than those for summer months.
J.-P. D.
Well, I did say “It won’t change trends much, barely enough to notice.”
It’s insignificant, but even a tiny shift like that causes me to qualify what we usually say, that the trends will be exactly the same regardless of the baseline.
OK!
In February, temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere will drop, both on the surface and in the troposphere.
https://i.ibb.co/TBGrD5w/Screenshot-1.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_JFM_NH_2021.png
Analysis of the monthly mean 20C isotherm depth for February 2021 on the Pacific.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/oceanography/wrap_ocean_analysis.pl?id=IDYOC005&year=2021&month=02
Which is much closer to neutral than three months ago.
I anticipate another wave of La Nina.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
https://weather.gc.ca/saisons/image_e.html?id=daily&img=2021020500_054_G6_global_I_SEASON_tm@lg@sd_000&bc=sea
Really? Did the drop in ENSO 1.2 in early January lead to “another wave”? What happened after that drop? You seem to believe that ENSO 1.2 is the “cause” of the ENSO cycle.
I forecast a further drop in global temperature.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/global.png
A PDO flip could string predominantly LA Nina together
Just checked to see how long ago all the Arctic ice vanished. Was I surprised or what? Seems there is more ice up there than on the same day 16 years ago!!!
I suspect Arctic ice extent is no longer held up as proof of settled science? Pesky darn ice.. melt!!!
Long term Arctic sea ice is decline is occurring much faster than scientists predicted. It is true that on this date 2005 was lower than 2021. However, there will be a lot of daily variation so this isn’t unexpected. But over the long term the decline is decisive. The annual mean in 2020 was lower than that in 2005. In fact, 2020 actually set a new record low. Sea ice has been declining so fast that scientists’ predictions have struggled to keep up.
When all that sea ice is gone, we can drill for oil up there.
Win-win.
I don’t know. Winter ice would likely cause significant issues with oil rigs. Winter ice will be a mainstay of the Arctic region for hundreds of years even with RCPs that exceed RCP8.5.
Yeah, we can’t even get rid of the summer sea ice.
It was just wishful thinking. The planet’s too cold.
That’s a problem the left has never understood. We don’t have a global warming problem. We have a global cooling problem.
b,
Which scientists made the prediction?
If you say their prediction was wrong, why should anybody believe their next one?
Probably self proclaimed climate scientists. Its always worse than they thought, didnt happen at all, or wont happen until after they retire!
Sack the lot of them. Spend the taxpayers money on something that may turn out to be useful.
Harves
On the same day? Are you serious?
Here are the averages, in Mkm^2, of all years since 1979:
2016: 10.16
2020: 10.18
2019: 10.21
2018: 10.35
2017: 10.4
2012: 10.42
2007: 10.5
2011: 10.51
2015: 10.59
2010: 10.73
2006: 10.79
2014: 10.81
2013: 10.92
2005: 10.93
2009: 10.96
2008: 10.99
2004: 11.25
2002: 11.39
2003: 11.42
1995: 11.44
2000: 11.52
2001: 11.62
1997: 11.69
1999: 11.71
1990: 11.72
1991: 11.77
1998: 11.78
1996: 11.85
1984: 11.92
1993: 11.95
1989: 11.99
1985: 12.02
1994: 12.03
1988: 12.06
1992: 12.12
1981: 12.15
1987: 12.18
1986: 12.22
1979: 12.35
1980: 12.35
1983: 12.35
1982: 12.47
And here is a graph showing all months in anomaly form wrt the mean of 1981-2010:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BwaIAZDAG96tMZ8NupH-jCQx7pTUZnF1/view
But… maybe you think, only daily data will show it right, so we look at the daily anomalies wrt the mean of 1981-2010:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19I6WWxw-xavC0H7K7tS_Ocef8BE2gzcs/view
J.-P. D.
Sources
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/monthly/data/
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/data/
There seems to be a slight discrepancy here. According to N.S.I.D.C (which operates from the University of Colorado) the ranking is as follows. Note that 2020 had the lowest annual extent on record.
2020 – 10.160
2016 – 10.163
2019 – 10.201
2018 – 10.355
2017 – 10.393
This according to the Sea_Ice_Index_Monthly_Data_by_Year_G02135_v3.0.xlsx file at:
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/seaice_analysis
Wow bdgwx…
I’m sorry, to write that, but… you behave here about as pedantic as a German elementary school teacher. And I happen to know a few.
Shall we REALLY discuss on this blog about a difference of no more than 0.003 Mkm^2?
What, do you think, does this ranking difference change?
Don’t you think it would be better to underline the fact that above 2005 all years in the ascending sort belong to the most recent decade?
J.-P. D.
Yeah, I mean the difference is insignificant to your point. I was just curious about it.
The difference is 80 000 sq km.
2016: 10.16
2020: 10.18
vs.
2020 10.160
2016 10.163
Top two are ranked differently depending on whether you use the daily or monthly data set?
bdgwx
Ooops! Sorry, possibly my bad.
Due to barry’s reaction, I see why you wrote that way.
I’ll have a look at the discrepancy tomorrow, it’s over 2 am here now.
J.-P. D.
Harves is quite right.
The sea ice extent for the first four days of February 2021:
14.183
14.232
14.332
14.286
And 16 years ago, the first four days of February 2005:
14.031
14.071
14.145
14.128
to repeat a refrain here, just because a day or two in Winter can be warmer than a day or two in Summer, Summer is still warmer than Winter.
Harves doesn’t know the difference between weather and climate.
Solar activity is a great mystery.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/AR_CH_20210204_hres.png
The trendline sits at about +0.21. Jan 2021 was 0.09 below the trendline. This is somewhat unusual in that we would normally expect a much larger excursion below the trendline for the first January in which a La Nina formed following a transition from an El Nino.
The Democrats are now demanding a “purity” test be given to the military. Does it remind you of anyone or a group in particular? Maybe a political movement in Germany after WWI?
Stephen Paul Anderson
An answer from Germany you seem to ignore everything about
Only far right-wing, alt-right people like you can be so brazen and/or ignorant to establish such a disgusting, woeful link between US Democrats and the German Fascists around Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler, the SA, the NSDAP, the SS and millions of Germans.
Who were responsible for WWII, at least 50 million deaths, plus killing of
– 6 million Jewish people
– 1 million people who wanted nothing to do with fascism (Catholics, Protestants, Conservatives, Liberals, Social Democrats, Socialists, Communists)
– 500,000 Roma and Sinti (also named Gypsies)
– hundred thousands of mentally or physically disabled people
and
– not to forget the terrible torture of so many people by the Gestapo thugs.
Are you a Fascist, Stephen Paul Anderson?
And don’t even try to reply with the typical ‘Communists under Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot etc were even worse’.
J.-P. D.
Bindi,
What is the opposite of up? What is the opposite of light? What is the opposite of the left? So, how can the opposite of big government totalitarianism be big government totalitarianism? The Nazis and the Fascists were left. Historically, only the left has murdered its own citizens.
Stephen Paul Anderson
” The Nazis and the Fascists were left. ”
I can’t recall having read such a digusting lie during the last decades.
Such a sentence, Anderson, exposes you as a real Fascist, like are all the Fascists in South America who supported the Nazis who escaped there after 1945 and, conversely, received great help from them in establishing their dictatorships in Argentina, Chile, Paraguay. Brazil etc.
Pfui Deibel, Anderson!
J.-P. D.
Bindi,
Read “Road to Serfdom” by Freidrich Hayek. That Austrian disagrees with you.
By the way, all those South American dictators to whom you alluded were leftists.
Yeah
Pinochet, Videla, Stroessner: all leftists.
Some people are ready to any manipulation.
I repeat, Anderson: you are a fascist, and above all, a stubborn one.
J.-P. D.
J.P.D.-Just Plain Dumb.
Binny,
I think you mean the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.
Rehashing old history is not generally productive.
As to Fascism, try to define the term. You have demonised groups and people in your comments, and have wished people with whom you disagree suffer lingering, painful deaths.
Are you a closet Fascist? Maybe Fascism means different things to different people. Just like communism, Buddhism, or democracy.
The past is history. The futures a mystery. Today is a gift – that is why it is called the present.
Carry on promulgating Wokeism.
Swen,
Fascist is an easy term to define if you read its history. Fasci is the Italian term for “bundle of sticks.” Mussolini started the Fascist Party in Italy when he became disenchanted with Marxism. He believed Marx got it wrong that the middle class worldwide would rise against the upper class. In his writings, he said that what Marx got wrong is that socialists identified with their country and not with globalism. So, Italian socialists were Italians first. German socialists were Germans first. They would not follow the Marxists in Russia. So, a Fascist is just a National socialist. Leftist elites have been trying to redefine the term since WWII.
Godwin’s law at work here again.
Connect Dems, liberals, progressives with the most murderous people of the last century, Hitler, Stalin, Mao.
Or even better, turn them into a cabal (pronounced ‘cable’ by MT Greene) of demonic pedophiles, controlled by the international cable of Jewish puppeteers, like George Soros, with their Jewish Lasers in space that started the California wildfires.
Make America Hate Again. Hate DEMs. Hate progressives. Hate non-white non-Christians. Hate brown immigrants.
By any means necessary.
This seems to be what works for right-wing media ratings and click-bait on social media.
Talk about denial. The left has denied who they are for decades and who can blame them. Leftists, the party of slavery, the Nazis and Fascists, the KKK, Japanese-American internment, the Marxists, Globalists, Socialists, Democrats, Khmer Rouge, Antifa, BLM. Leftists, all.
Nate
Some people really need to see a psychiatrist.
The Nazis killed and tortured hundreds of thousands of Socialists and Communists between 1933 and 1945, but perverted American ignoramuses presume to describe them as leftists.
No need for any further discussion.
I think guys like Anderson should be sent for the rest of their life to a country directed by fascists, so they would understand the fundamental difference between
– cowardly writing their trash at home in a tolerant democracy
and
– living in a Nazi-like hell.
J.-P. D.
Bindi, Bindi, Bindi. That’s an old argument. If the Nazis were leftists, then why did they kill other leftists, Communists? You need to read a little bit of your own German history, Bindi. The Communists and Marxists in Germany weren’t loyal to Germany. They were Leninists and Stalinists. The Nazis were Nationalists. The Fascists in Italy, started by Mussolini, a former Marxist, were Nationalists. Nazi, The NATIONAL Socialist German Workers Party. There, now do you understand? It is the same idea as Sunnis killing Shia or Catholics killing Protestants. Or one Monarchist killing another Monarchist.
Bindi,
If you don’t believe me, read Hayek. He was there.
In 1945, no one misunderstood who the Nazis were. But, when the horrors of the Holocaust appeared, leftist academics and writers began re-writing history, describing the Nazis as “right-wing.” The argument, “why would Nazis kill Marxists if they were leftist brethren?” Stupid reasoning meant for the gullible acolytes.
It gets tiresonme to have to repeat the same facts that contradict Stephen over and over.
“They were Leninists and Stalinists.”
No they werent. They beat up and killed Lenninists and Stalinists.
“The Nazis were Nationalists. The Fascists in Italy, started by Mussolini, a former Marxist, were Nationalists.”
Ok, so by Stephen’s rules:
Ronald Reagan, a former liberal Democrat supporter of FDR…a Lefitist!
Once a Leftist, Ronald Reagan was always a Leftist!
Riiiigght???
“Nazi, The NATIONAL Socialist German Workers”
OMG. Its all about the name, by Stephen’s rules. Once they got that name from the previous incarnation of the party, thats it. They were stuck being socialists!
Ronald Reagan changed parties. He was a Democrat but then saw the error of his ways. NATE! Read Freidrich Hayek if you don’t believe me. Look at the 25 point Nazi Party platform. The Nazis were socialists.
Ronald Reagan did not become another kind of leftist. He didn’t leave the Democrat Party and join the Communist Party or the Green Party. He changed his political philosophy, Mussolini didn’t. Mussolini believed in most of the tenets of Marxism, but not their global view. Italians didn’t owe their allegiance to Russia but Italy.
“Ronald Reagan did not become another kind of leftist.”
And the point goes whoosh way over your head!
I’ve pointed out authors of the past who were there, who described who the Nazis were, Freidrich Hayek and Albert Speer. Why don’t you try educating yourself instead of remaining clueless sycophant?
I know about Speer from reading and watching a lot of WWII history. I know after the war he was all about CYA.
I looked up Hayek. I would agree with a lot he said about economics and government. He was critical of central planning, like the Communist 5 y plans, and advocated a market driven economy.
But he seemed to understand that govt could provide a safety net, like welfare and SS, and rules and regulations, as long as they applied equally. Even environmental rules.
He argued that socialism inevitably would lead to totalitarianism.
But history has proven him wrong about that. There are many European countries, that post WWII have had socialist policies, like Sweden, that did not end up as totalitarian states.
“Talk about denial. ”
Let me get this straight Stephen.
You think today’s Democratic party, and progressives are advocates of slavery, the Holocaust, white supremacy, anti-semitism, anti-democracy, militant nationalism, political prisons, and military dictatorship?
And you still need to explain YOUR advocacy for right-wing authoritarianism.
And you are a Tennesseean right?
Thus by your logic, you must be an advocate of slavery, since Tennesseeans advocated for slavery and secession in 1861.
C’mon.
You can’t even follow. You make arguments, and you don’t even have a clue. You’re not even worth responding to; you’re so clueless. The communists in Germany in the 1920s and 1930s were Leninists and Stalinists. Any competent history book on the era, like Hayek’s, will explain that to you. So, now do you want to stop sticking your foot in your mouth?
The Civil War wasn’t a war between the North and the South. Democrats controlled Tennessee at the time. The Civil War was a war between Republicans and Democrats. In 1860 there were four million slaves. Democrats owned all slaves. Not ONE Republican owned a slave.
So Nate, when did the Nazis make this big switch to the right? The right is limited government, small government, Bill of Rights, small taxes, de-centralized, private ownership. When did the Nazis do this? Tell me!
“Democrats owned all slaves.”
Why does that matter?
Tennesseans owned slaves. Southerners owned slaves. Northerners didnt own slaves, even Democrats.
Democrat, Tennessean, Southerner. These are labels.
I don’t think Tennesseans, Southerners, or Democrats have the same beliefs today as in 1861.
How bout you?
The Democrat Party is the party of slavery, the KKK, white supremacy, and Nazis. Do I think Democrats will advocate this? No. But it is in your nature to ultimately be who you are. The Democrats claim not to be the party of slavery but continue to enslave blacks for their votes. They claim not to be Nazis or KKK but are Antifa and BLM’s party, avowed Marxists. Political prisons? How many Democrats have recently hinted that conservatives need to be “re-educated?” Who is the party of cancel culture and censorship? Leftists can disavow all they want but can’t escape their true nature. Have you ever heard the tale of the frog and the scorpion?
“Do I think Democrats will advocate this? No.:
OK, good.
“But it is in your nature to ultimately be who you are.”
Ok, then racism must be in your nature, since you are a Southerner?
“Who is the party of cancel culture and censorship?”
The R party is the center of cancel culture and censorship right now.
Anyone who didnt support Trump, or his bid to overturn the election, is being censured by their state parties.
The party is saying bend the knee to Trump or get the hell out of the party!
Democrats are not/= Nazis.
But is is a common practice to suggest anyone you hate must be a Nazi.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law
Nate, do you know who Albert Speer was? He wrote a book when he got out of prison. Maybe you should read it. Maybe even you can learn something.
Racism isn’t defined by where you’re from. It is defined by how you think. Racists and the KKK were exclusive to the Democrat Party. I had ancestors who fought for the Union and the Confederacy. The ones who fought for the Confederacy were racist Democrats. The ones who fought for the Union were anti-slavery. They were all from the South.
“Racism isn’t defined by where you’re from.”
“The Civil War wasn’t a war between the North and the South. Democrats controlled Tennessee at the time. The Civil War was a war between Republicans and Democrats.”
OK Stephen,
Never mind that in 1860 Southern Dems split from Northern Dems over slavery, and ran their own Presidential candidate.
We all know that Robt E. Lee joined the Confederacy because of his loyalty to Virginia, his state, which was more important than his loyalty to his country.
Would you have us believe it was instead because of his loyalty to the Democratic party?
And the secessionists in South Carolina and other southern states? Were they imploring their compatriots to join the cause out of loyalty to the Democratic party?
This is, of course, absurd historical revisionism.
It seems you want desperately to connect all the bad events in history to the group that you hate TODAY.
Maybe you should ponder why it is you need to do that? And why it is that right-wing media wants you to do that?
This is similar to the QANON phenomenon. People are willing to believe the most absurd things about a group, to somehow justify their hatred for them.
Only now are some people realizing that they have been deceived.
You?
Anonymous Nate,
Robert E. Lee, owner of hundreds of slaves. Lee was smart enough to know he couldnt say Im joining Virginia because I support slavery Like most Confederates, it was about states rights. Balderdash.
Lincoln said Republicans believe that man owns the fruits of his labors. He said the left believes….You work, I eat! No different than the left today.
Out of loyalty to the Democratic Party? Of course and ALL its ideals. You work, I eat! Did the KKK murder Democrats out of loyalty to a particular state or an ideal? Did Democrat states create Jim Crow laws out of loyalty to a state? Did the Democrats continue to elect Democrat Legislatures and Democrat Governors out of loyalty to a state?
Nate says: OK Stephen,
Never mind that in 1860 Southern Dems split from Northern Dems over slavery, and ran their own Presidential candidate.
I just explained to you who Lincoln described as the Four Horsemen of Slavery. They were all NORTHERN Democrats. Duh!
What was the reason for the split? This is a teachable moment.
Anonymous Nate,
I’ve given you two authors, Hayek and Speer, who completely contradict your view. I have another. Ludwig Von Mises. Omnipotent Government: The Rise of Total State and Total War.
Read it!
“Out of loyalty to the Democratic Party? Of course and ALL its ideals.”
Stephen, you are a lost cause. And part of the Lost Cause, which as you point out (states rights!) was historical revisionism by Southerners.
And you are doing the very same thing here. Revisionism to blame all past bad events on Democratic ideals.
Please show us a link to History of the Civil War that agrees with your POV, that the Civil War was all about Democratic party ideals.
You have major causality issues.
Slavery was brought here in the 1600s. It was incorporated in the US Constitution in the 1780s.
The Democratic Party was created ~ 1830.
NO, you cannot blame Slavery on Democratic party ideals.
The Southern Democratic party ideals of 1860, were different from those of Northern Democrats, and COMPLETELY different from those of TODAY’s Democratic party.
So NO, you cannot blame slavery on TODAYS Democratic party ideals either.
And quit trying to link Todays Dems with Nazis. That is utterly absurd.
Its all just to excuse, justify, your hatred for Democrats TODAY.
But it is just weird twisted fantasy, Stephen.
Get a grip!
“Democratic part ideals”
Here is the first Dem party platform I could find, from 1840.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/1840-democratic-party-platform
Is it what you thought it would be?
Seems to be all about limited Federal government and States rights.
You are such a dimwit. And, all your leftist brethren are such dimwits. You don’t know your history. I wonder if the Cherokee Nation agrees with you.
https://www.ushistory.org/us/24f.asp
Was Andrew Jackson acting LIMITED when he ordered the removal of all those Cherokee? How many died?
Slavery was part of the British Empire. That isn’t the point. Who fought to keep slavery? Hmmmm?
Nate says: The Southern Democratic party ideals of 1860, were different from those of Northern Democrats….
Explain?
BTW, Andrew Jackson is Trumps favorite President.
As President, Jackson was for limited federal govt power, and states rights. And that you can see in the Party platform I posted.
So, why don’t you think these are Democratic party ideals?
But you do think oppressing the Native Americans are Democratic party ideals?
Oppressing Native Americans was going on since the 1500s, well before the start of the Democratic party.
It continued to be the policy of the Republican party, where treaties were broken and ethnic cleansing took place into the 20th century.
You cherry pick the negative things from the 190 y history of the Democratic party.
And you want us to believe that:
1. The bad things done by people in history are due to their political party.
2. The bad policies/ideals of a party more than a century ago are somehow retained in TODAYs people and party, but not the good policies/ideals.
This makes no sense, Stephen. People evolved. Policies evolved.
History is multi-dimensional. Many causes and influences on events.
You cannot boil it down to one variable (R vs D).
Particularly for the purpose of maligning a group of people today.
Many new variables are involved that didnt exist a century ago.
We shouldn’t blame slavery or the Civil War on today’s Southerners, for the same reason.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Democrats
Stephen,
This discussion reminds me of someone that is likely one of your conservative heroes. Antonin Scalia.
He and liberal hero, Ruth Bader Ginzburg, were very good friends.
He obviously did not think of her as evil, simply because she was a liberal Democrat.
Cherrypick!LOL. A common refrain from the left. It isn’t hard to cherry-pick. Let’s see, the forced internment of the Cherokee, fought to preserve slavery, KKK, Jim Crow, Japanese American incarceration. The Democrats have a pretty nasty record. The Democrats are the party of progressivism, income tax, Federal Reserve, 17th Amendment, Social Security, The New Deal, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, and Obamacare. The Democrats are the party of big government egalitarianism, except for the Cherokee. Oh, and the blacks, and the Japanese Americans, and Christians, and conservatives. But, other than those, they are for equanimity.
Look at the Democrats today. They are the party of censorship, cancel culture, #Me Too, reparations, BLM, and Antifa.
Stephen,
Just as Germans cannot just blame one political party for what they did in WWII, the long-ago attrocities of Americans, cannot be blamed on one party.
Americans, of all parties, were racist. Americans tolerated slavery. Americans wiped out the Native Americans. Americans were in favor of Japanese internment.
People dont choose their party based on what distant ancestors did 150 y ago.
People choose the party that works for them, in the present.
Since FDR, and more so since the Civil Rights era, minorities chose the Democratic party.
Since Civil Rights era, racists chose the Republican party. And they seem to prefer it today.
No, sorry, Nate, that argument doesn’t work. Leftists do the atrocities and then want to spread the blame around on “America.” In 1860, at the start of the Civil War, there were four million slaves. Name one slave owned by a Republican?
Name one Republican Governor who signed Jim Crow legislation?
Name one Republican President who committed an atrocity like “Trail of Tears” or Japanese American internment?
It wasn’t “America.” It was the Left.
Name one mass genocide that wasn’t committed by the left: the Holocaust, Stalin, Mao, Khmer Rouge, all left committed atrocities.
Not our nature or America’s nature. It is YOUR Nature. Stop running away from who you are. Stop trying to obfuscate the facts.
Nate says: Oppression of the Native Americans was going on since the 1500s.
By who Nate? You still don’t get it.
Leftists. It is always leftists. The colonialists and monarchists were leftists. Big government. Totalitarianism. Wrapped in the cloak of monarchy and royalty. Maybe if you try really hard you can understand. Oppression is a tool of the Left.
In Nate’s world, Nazis made this big switch to the right, and Republicans made this big switch to become racists. Tell us when Nate?
Nate, you’re living in this delusional world of projection. It is who YOU are.
“Leftists. It is always leftists. The colonialists and monarchists were leftists. ”
The ‘Left’ did not exist when slaves were brought here, you idiot.
Monarchists were the opposite of Leftists, who wanted the Monarchy ended, dumbass!
And plenty of Republicans were in charge, 1870-1920 when the natives were ethnically cleansed, removed to reservations, and/or wiped out, dimwit!
https://www.okhistory.org/research/airemoval
Stop revising history to suit your hatreds in the present.
It is transparent, and nobody buys it.
You’re brilliant, aren’t you? Just ask you. There have always been a left and a right, ever since there were governments. Monarchs weren’t left? Really? Genius. Pathological Projector!
“Nazis made this big switch to the right, and Republicans made this big switch to become racists. Tell us when Nate?”
Nazis? Irrelevant to Dems, who as much as you would like them to be, are not Nazis. Take it up with historians.
I did not say Republicans became racists. I said racists became Republicans, in 1964 and after.
In 1948 after military desegregation under D Truman, Strom Thurmond left the D party, and won 4 Southern States as 3rd party candidate.
Barry Goldwater, Republican candidate for President in 1964, opposed Civil Rights Legislation.
The only states he won were his home state of AZ, and FIVE DEEP SOUTH STATES.
After Civil Rights passed, you had segregationists Strom Thurmond and George Wallace leaving the D party, Thurmond became R, and Wallace a 3rd party.
Then in 1968 you had Nixon and the Southern Strategy to use the race-card to lure white southern voters. It worked: Nixon and Wallace split the Southern States.
More revisionist history from Anonymous Nate the Pathological Projector.
One Dixiecrat, Strom Thurmond, joined the Republican Party. All the rest of the Dixiecrats remained Democrats to their deaths. Robert “KKK” Byrd remained a Democrat. Robert Byrd, a member of the KKK, who Joe Biden at his eulogy said spoke “truth to power.” Whatever that means. What does that mean, Nate?
Barry Goldwater was a racist? No one makes that argument, Nate, not even pathological leftists. Barry Goldwater, a member of the NAACP and supporter of Civil Rights. Yes, he voted against Johnson’s Civil Rights Act because he opposed the overreach and language. How long did the Dixiecrats filibuster the Civil Rights Act? It wasn’t Republicans filibustering the Act.
George Wallace, segregationist, ” I don’t believe in bussing those GD little bitty school children to try and recede the racial balance.”
That’s a hoot Nate. George Wallace was never a Republican. George Wallace was a bigot to his dying day. And a Dixiecrat.
Stephen.
History does not conform to your weird fantasy that every event and trend was caused by political party membership.
Goldwater “Yes, he voted against Johnsons Civil Rights Act because he opposed the overreach and language.”
Sure.
“During this era, several Republican candidates expressed support for states’ rights, a reversal of the position held by Republicans prior to the Civil War. Some political analysts said this term was used in the 20th century as a ‘code word’ to represent opposition to federal enforcement of civil rights for blacks and to federal intervention on their behalf; many individual southerners had opposed passage of the Voting Rights Act.”
Regardless of why Barry Goldwater opposed Civil Rights Legislation, the result was he won 5 states in the Deep South, who voted Republican.
Why did they switch? It should be obvious.
Then came the Southern Strategy and Southern States voted Rep or 3rd party for President in 1968 and 1972 elections.
Chairman of Rep party Ken Mehlman, later admitted that there was a deliberate Southern strategy whereby Republican leaders consciously appealed to many white Southerners’ racial grievances in order to gain their support.
Your state started electing Republican senators in 1966, and continued D/R until all Republican from the 1990s.
The exceptions were 1976, 1992, with Southern and/or evangelical Christian candidates.
Nate, the correlation is that as the South got more conservative, it got less racist. This is a historical fact. And, to say that Republicans had not been supportive of states’ rights is idiocy. Republicans have always supported the tenth amendment. What they didn’t support was using states’ rights to defend slavery.
The Left, the egalitarian ilk, have historically resorted to murder to achieve their means. They are the arbiters of good or bad, right or wrong, winners or losers, and will kill anyone who interferes with their God-given right to be society’s masterminds.
Stephen,
“Nate, the correlation is that as the South got more conservative, it got less racist.”
Again, a correlation causation fallacy.
And, really? You believe Southerners were NOT CONSERVATIVE prior to 1964? But became so after?
Republican’s were always for States Rights?
Just look up the impeachment of Andrew Johnson. DEMs were the main advocates of States Rights.
Reconstruction, imposed by the Republican majority in Congress was certainly an infringement by the Federal Government on States Rights.
Republican President Grant wanted to continue it.
You are stuck in a fantasy Star-Wars-like Universe, not ours. Where your Team is GOOD and always was GOOD, and my Team is EVIL, and always was EVIL.
You might be surprised that Lincoln imposed the first Income Tax.
And Republican “President William Howard Taft, in an address to the Sixty-first Congress, proposed a two percent federal income tax on corporations by way of an excise tax and a constitutional amendment to allow the previously enacted income tax.”
Republican Teddy Roosevelt supported it.
16th Amendment passed bipartisan 3/4 of states in 1913
And speaking of TRossevelt he was big on American Imperialism, and took by force Cuba, Philippines and imposed our will on Panama.
Entropic man
In your post:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/#comment-607053
You figured out what I was looking for. Thanks.
Using the MODTRAN tool:
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
If I change both the CO2 value and the Water vapor value from 1880 (water vapor is thought to increase 7% per K so a 1.2 C increase would increase the Water vapor 8.4 %.)
I set the altitude to 0 for Earth surface and changed the view to looking up so you get the DWIR at the surface.
I put in 280 for the CO2 value and 0.916 for the Water Vapor to simulate 1880 DWIR. With no other changes I got a value of 361.728 W/m^2. Then I changed the values to current. CO2 to 411 and Water Vapor to 1. The DWIR calculated to 369.264. The difference was 7.536 W/m^2. Without the negative contribution of increased evaporation the Surface would now be 7.536/3.7= 2.04 C warmer rather than the value of 1.2 C.
The contribution of CO2 was given by you as 2.05 W/m^2. The increase in WV would add 5.486 W/m^2. You calculated the WV feedback as responsible for a gain of 2.39 W/m^2 so the negative value for evaporation increase would be 3.096 W/m^2 (could be less since sensible heat losses could also increase with higher temperature). Anyway it looks like evaporative cooling does reduce the water feedback by about half as found in the article I linked you to in a previous thread.
https://web.ma.utexas.edu/mp_arc/c/11/11-16.pdf
So if the modern models are not adding the evaporative cooling with a warmer surface into the model, it will run hot which all the evidence seems to show. If they added the negative value of evaporative losses the models may match the current surface temperature warming data.
Strong frost in the north of the US tonight.
https://i.ibb.co/0MJdfdz/Screenshot-3.png
ren
A little reminder about ‘the north of the US’
1. Minesotta, top 5 over all years
USC00218311 MN_TOWER_2S___________________ 1996 2 2 -51.1
USC00214652 MN_LEECH_LAKE_________________ 1899 2 9 -50.6
USC00216612 MN_POKEGAMA_DAM_______________ 1903 2 16 -50.6
USC00218311 MN_TOWER_2S___________________ 1996 2 1 -50.0
USC00212576 MN_EMBARRASS__________________ 1996 1 20 -49.4
2. Minesotta, top 5 over 2010-2021
USC00211840 MN_COT.TON_____________________ 2019 1 27 -48.9
USC00211840 MN_COT.TON_____________________ 2019 2 1 -48.9
USC00211840 MN_COT.TON_____________________ 2019 1 31 -47.2
USC00210515 MN_BAUDETTE___________________ 2019 1 31 -46.1
USC00211250 MN_CAMP_NORRIS_DNR____________ 2019 1 31 -45.6
Please weak me up when you see such nice temperatures ahead!
J.-P. D.
Thank you.
I just went through stations that existed since 1900 and identified locations that had a low BI. It was difficult to find any stations at all that showed warming. Here is a list of 100 stations that show no warming trend at all over the past 100+ years. How can CO2 increase from under 300 to 410 and not have an impact on temperatures in these locations? Do the laws of Physics cease to exist in these locations?
Steveston (49.1333N, 123.1833W) ID:CA001107710
Maiduguri (11.8500N, 13.0830E) ID:NIM00065082
Zanzibar (6.222S, 39.2250E) ID:TZM00063870
Laghouat (33.7997N, 2.8900E) ID:AGE00147719
Luqa (35.8500N, 14.4831E) ID:MT000016597
Ponta Delgada (37.7410N, 25.698W) ID:POM00008512
Wauseon Wtp (41.5183N, 84.1453W) ID:USC00338822
Valentia Observatory (51.9394N, 10.2219W) ID:EI000003953
Dombaas (62.0830N, 9.1170E) ID:NOM00001233
Okecie (52.1660N, 20.9670E) ID:PLM00012375
Vilnius (54.6331N, 25.1000E) ID:LH000026730
Vardo (70.3670N, 31.1000E) ID:NO000098550
Port Blair (11.6670N, 92.7170E) ID:IN099999901
Nagpur Sonegaon (21.1000N, 79.0500E) ID:IN012141800
Indore (22.7170N, 75.8000E) ID:IN011170400
Enisejsk (58.4500N, 92.1500E) ID:RSM00029263
Vladivostok (43.8000N, 131.9331E) ID:RSM00031960
Nikolaevsk Na Amure (53.1500N, 140.7164E) ID:RSM00031369
Nemuro (43.3330N, 145.5830E) ID:JA000047420
York (31.8997S, 116.7650E) ID:ASN00010311
Albany (35.0289S, 117.8808E) ID:ASN00009500
Adelaide West Terrace (34.9254S, 138.5869E) ID:ASN00023000
Yamba Pilot Station (29.4333S, 153.3633E) ID:ASN00058012
Wilsons Promontory Lighthouse (39.1297S, 146.4244E) ID:ASN00085096
Mount Gambier Post Office (37.8333S, 140.7833E) ID:ASN00026020
Cape Otway Lighthouse (38.8556S, 143.5128E) ID:ASN00090015
Lencois (12.567S, 41.383W) ID:BR047571250
Eagle (64.7856N, 141.2036W) ID:USC00502607
Orland (39.7458N, 122.1997W) ID:USC00046506
Bahia Blanca Aero (38.733S, 62.167W) ID:AR000877500
Punta Arenas (53.0S, 70.967W) ID:CI000085934
Brazzaville (4.25S, 15.2500E) ID:CF000004450
Durban Intl (29.97S, 30.9510E) ID:SFM00068588
Port Elizabeth Intl (33.985S, 25.6170E) ID:SFM00068842
Zanzibar (6.222S, 39.2250E) ID:TZM00063870
Sandakan (5.9000N, 118.0670E) ID:MY000096491
Aparri (18.3670N, 121.6330E) ID:RP000098232
Darwin Airport (12.4239S, 130.8925E) ID:ASN00014015
Palmerville (16.0008S, 144.0758E) ID:ASN00028004
Yamba Pilot Station (29.4333S, 153.3633E) ID:ASN00058012
Coonabarabran Namoi Street (31.2712S, 149.2714E) ID:ASN00064008
Newcastle Nobbys Signal Stati (32.9185S, 151.7985E) ID:ASN00061055
Moruya Heads Pilot Station (35.9093S, 150.1532E) ID:ASN00069018
Omeo (37.1017S, 147.6008E) ID:ASN00083090
Gabo Island Lighthouse (37.5679S, 149.9158E) ID:ASN00084016
Wilsons Promontory Lighthouse (39.1297S, 146.4244E) ID:ASN00085096
Echucaaerodrome (36.1647S, 144.7642E) ID:ASN00080015
Cape Otway Lighthouse (38.8556S, 143.5128E) ID:ASN00090015
Maryborough (37.056S, 143.7320E) ID:ASN00088043
Longerenong (36.6722S, 142.2991E) ID:ASN00079028
Christchurch Intl (43.489S, 172.5320E) ID:NZM00093780
Hokitika Aerodrome (42.717S, 170.9830E) ID:NZ000936150
Auckland Aero Aws (37.0S, 174.8000E) ID:NZM00093110
St Paul Island Ap (57.1553N, 170.2222W) ID:USW00025713
Nome Muni Ap (64.5111N, 165.44W) ID:USW00026617
Kodiak Ap (57.7511N, 152.4856W) ID:USW00025501
Eagle (64.7856N, 141.2036W) ID:USC00502607
Dawson A (64.0500N, 139.1333W) ID:CA002100402
Atlin (59.5667N, 133.7W) ID:CA001200560
Juneau Intl Ap (58.3567N, 134.5639W) ID:USW00025309
Skagway (59.4547N, 135.3136W) ID:USC00508525
Hay River A (60.8333N, 115.7833W) ID:CA002202400
Prince Albert A (53.2167N, 105.6667W) ID:CA004056240
Kamloops A (50.7000N, 120.45W) ID:CA001163780
Banff (51.1833N, 115.5667W) ID:CA003050520
Mina (38.3844N, 118.1056W) ID:USC00265168
Merced Muni Ap (37.2847N, 120.5128W) ID:USW00023257
So Entr Yosemite Np (37.5122N, 119.6331W) ID:USC00048380
Santa Maria (34.9500N, 120.4333W) ID:USC00047940
Maricopa (35.0833N, 119.3833W) ID:USC00045338
Ojai (34.4478N, 119.2275W) ID:USC00046399
Death Valley (36.4622N, 116.8669W) ID:USC00042319
Rio Grande City (26.3769N, 98.8117W) ID:USC00417622
Beeville 5 Ne (28.4575N, 97.7061W) ID:USC00410639
Carlsbad (32.3478N, 104.2225W) ID:USC00291469
Burnet (30.7586N, 98.2339W) ID:USC00411250
Mtn Park (32.9539N, 105.8225W) ID:USC00295960
Williams (35.2414N, 112.1928W) ID:USC00029359
Needles Ap (34.7675N, 114.6189W) ID:USW00023179
Loa (38.4058N, 111.6433W) ID:USC00425148
Priest River Exp Stn (48.3511N, 116.8353W) ID:USC00107386
Republic (48.6469N, 118.7314W) ID:USC00456974
Rangely 1E (40.0892N, 108.7722W) ID:USC00056832
Lovelock (40.1906N, 118.4767W) ID:USC00264698
Pendleton (45.6906N, 118.8528W) ID:USW00024155
Nevada City (39.2467N, 121.0008W) ID:USC00046136
Culbertson (48.1503N, 104.5089W) ID:USC00242122
Indian Head Cda (50.5500N, 103.65W) ID:CA004013480
Sherman (33.7033N, 96.6419W) ID:USC00418274
Ballinger 2 Nw (31.7414N, 99.9764W) ID:USC00410493
Ocala (29.1639N, 82.0778W) ID:USC00086414
Akron 4 E (40.1550N, 103.1417W) ID:USC00050109
Yates Ctr (37.8786N, 95.7292W) ID:USC00149080
Alfred (42.2497N, 77.7583W) ID:USC00300085
Georgetown (6.8000N, 58.15W) ID:GYM00081001
Casa Blancala Habana (23.1670N, 82.35W) ID:CUM00078325
Ft Kent (47.2386N, 68.6136W) ID:USC00172878
Moosonee (51.2833N, 80.6W) ID:CA006075420
Jackman (45.6275N, 70.2583W) ID:USC00174086
Columbia Rgnl Ap (38.8169N, 92.2183W) ID:USW00003945
Could you provide a link so we can check your work? I just picked a random weather station from your list – Dombaas – and it tells me the record starts in 2006, rather than 1900.
https://tinyurl.com/y4mnvtup
And what does BI stand for, just to be clear?
Brightness Index. GISS tags each station with the BI as part of their UHI adjustment.
Oh yes, ta.
Barry,
Dombaas has been a weather station since 1865. It only took me about one minute to find that.
Then please link to the temperature data that this station has since 1900. I would like to check that against CO2’s claim.
As you’ll see from my link, it appears Dombaas only has temp data since 2006.
I’m not your slave. Find it yourself.
I already did. the temp record doesn’t go back to 1900, it goes back to 2006.
CO2isLife told some fibs, and you’re here to hold his hand.
It was difficult to find any stations at all that showed warming.
Just spot checking a couple of them.
Okecie warmed at a rate +0.13C/decade. +0.38C/decade after 1960.
Vilnius warmed at a rate +0.15C/decade. +0.42C/decade after 1960.
Also, what result do you get when you check them all?
How can CO2 increase from under 300 to 410 and not have an impact on temperatures in these locations?
CO2 is not the only thing that determines annual mean temperature at specific locations.
Do the laws of Physics cease to exist in these locations?
No. That’s why CO2 is still not the only that determines annual temperature at specific locations.
None of those charts show an uptrend, none. There is extreme volatility, some may be at a high temp due to a sudden recent spike, but none of them show uptrends. They show volatility, but no trend. If you publish the R-Square of your regression it will be close to 0.00. That means there is volatility and no trend.
Please explain how there can be any, let alone 100, that show no trend in temperatures with a 30% increase in CO2 if it is the main driver of temperatures.
Okecie from 1880 is +0.128C/decade +/- 0.019
Okecie from 1960 is +0.379C/decade +/- 0.064
Vilnius from 1880 is +0.159C/decade +/- 0.020
Vilnius from 1960 is +0.420C/decade +/- 0.064
This is from Excel’s LINEST function. The results are statistically significant for both stations and both time periods.
No matter how much you want CO2 to be the only modulating factor for mean temperatures on short spatial and temporal scales it just simply isn’t going to be that way. We have got to break you of this “CO2 is the only factor” mentality. I just don’t know how to do that right now.
CO2IsLife
We had this useless discussion several times, and I did my best to show you why it is useless.
But you persist in trying to demonstrate your strange ideas about CO2 and surface temperatures.
For the umpteenth time: I have NOTHING to do with this CO2 discussion.
Thus I restrict as usual this comment to a neutral evaluation of the stations you present here.
*
1. Your list contains five duplicates:
ASN00058012
ASN00085096
ASN00090015
TZM00063870
USC00502607
2. You wrote above:
” I just went through stations that existed since 1900… ”
But a run through the cleaned station list shows that out of the 95 remaining stations, a lot had a life span less than 50 years, the five with the least one being:
CA006075420 2010 2021 12 ON MOOSONEE
NOM00001233 2006 2021 16 DOMBAAS
ASN00083090 2004 2021 18 OMEO
USW00023257 1998 2021 24 CA MERCED MUNI AP
ASN00010311 1996 2021 26 YORK
I dropped all stations off having existed for less than 50 years, leaving imho sufficient 82 stations.
Their trends in C / decade over the respective life span ranged between
– USC00411250, TX BURNET: -0.096
and
– GYM00081001, GEORGETOWN: 0.239
Two time series (TMIN, TMAX) averagiong the data of all 82 stations were generated.
Trends for 1900-2021, again in C / decade
TMIN: 0.30 +- 0.04
TMAX: 0.05 +- 0.05
Average trend: 0.17 +- 0.05
Here is the chart:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1V7Tskvpt9HXE8C9bhuwpHStK-KiUUK0v/view
As you can see, only the average over the TMAX temperature shows no trend over 120 years; but for TMIN, it is quite different.
This, CO2isLife, is the reason why so many commenters try to say that only TMAX temperatures matter.
Just a hint: the average trend for TMIN over 40029 stations worldwide, for 1900-2020, was 0.11 C / decade.
So I ask you: what exactly is your point with your station selection?
J.-P. D.
5 Stations had duplicates, and a few other had less than 100 years? That is your response?
OK, there are 82, and I’ll just go dig up some more and I’m sure I’ll have over 200 shortly, please explain how any of these stations can show 0.00 warming over 100 years when CO2 increased by over 30%? How can CO2 be the main driver in temperatures and not cause warming in so many stations?
Someone please answer that question. Do the laws of physics cease to exist in all those locations? Does CO2 some how turn off randomly for no reason at all?
Someone please give me an explanation as to why CO2 causes warming i some locations, mostly near cities, and doesn’t cause warming in others, mainly cold and hot deserts sheltered from the corrupting influence of H20 and the UHI Effect.
CO2isLife
” … mainly cold and hot deserts sheltered from the corrupting influence of H20 and the UHI Effect. ”
You are lying here.
Weeks ago, I have shown you lots and lots of desert places (GHCN V3 stations, do you remember?), lacking any UHI but having a warming trend on average.
You always ignore what has been shown to you and restart the discussion as if you were never contradicted.
I don’t continue discussions on such an insane basis.
J.-P. D.
binny…”We had this useless discussion several times, and I did my best to show you why it is useless.
But you persist in trying to demonstrate your strange ideas about CO2 and surface temperatures”.
***
You doing your best to teach anyone anything is hilarious. CO2 is way ahead of you on this, dealing from a higher level of intelligence. Such a source tends to confuse you, so you resort to insults.
Trying to show how the surface record has been corrupted won’t work. The idiots have an answer for everything.
The way to squash their nonsense is asking: “Can two ice cubes heat an object more than one ice cube?’
They will launch into dissertations about “absolute zero”, “dry ice”, and a plethora of such distractions.
That’s why this is so much fun.
CO2isLife made demonstrably false claims. Your pitiful attempt to spin that is quite transparent.
barry
It makes few sense to answer to people like ClintR.
They twist every argument into its reverse, regardless what we talk about, be it surface temperatures, Moon spin etc etc.
You can recognize them by the fact that they always want the last word. I recall JD*Huffman and ge*r*an’s behavior, ClintR behaves exactly the same as these two.
J.-P. D.
Thanks for the compliment, JD. But as Newton is quoted, “I stand on the shoulders of giants”.
Well barry, since you believe you’re an expert on “transparency”, you should be happy to answer the simple question: Can two ice cubes heat an object more than one ice cube?
Depending on the set up, yes.
If I finish sealing a window with a second block of ice, then the room being heated by a heater will get warmer, because heat loss from the room is slowed down.
If the object is colder than the blocks of ice, then two blocks of ice in proximity will make it warm faster than one.
If I put a second block of ice in a warm drink, though, it will cool faster than with one.
But this is beside the point under discussion.
Do you agree that CO2isLife made demonstrably false claimss, and that his suggestion based on those claims, that the world has not warmed since 1900, is therefore invalid?
Well “Mr. Transparency”, you are WRONG. Your distractions don’t help you.
The simple example of adding an ice cube to another ice cube destroys your false beliefs.
You have been tested positive for idiot, and you are unmasked.
Barry Says: “demonstrably false claims”
Please name one? I had some duplicates? Does that change the conclusion? I’ll simply go find more. Trust me, there are plenty.
Some didn’t have a 100 year record? I just double-checked by screen and the start data is 1900, so it is a 120 year period. If you have a problem with that, take it up with NASA GISS. I simply used their system.
Anyway, nothing you day refutes the fact that there are many many many sites that show 0.00 warming with a 30%+ increase in CO2. The fact that you are making nonsensical claims that I can easily correct, this is a hobby after all, and won’t explain how increasing CO2 by 30% doesn’t cause warming pretty much proves you can’t refute it.
No one is saying that every single location on Earth will experience warming. No one is saying that CO2 is the only thing that modulates mean temperatures on small spatial and temporal scales. It’s not even the only factor on large spatial and temporal scales. You’re testing a hypothesis that we’ve all known to be false for a really long time.
You lied when you said:
“I just went through stations that existed since 1900 and identified locations that had a low BI… Here is a list of 100 stations that show no warming trend at all over the past 100+ years.”
Dombaas has temp data for only 14 years, and four others had less than 30.
You lied when you said:
“Here is a list of 100 stations that show no warming trend at all over the past 100+ years”
Many of them do have warming trends. According to Bindidon, the average trend of all of them is 0.17 C/decade.
2 clear falsehoods.
Does that answer your question?
Also, you were asked to provide a link to the data you accessed, so we could check your work. You failed to do that, and I can only surmise that you didn’t want to be found out.
bdgwx also took some stations out for a run:
Okecie from 1880 is +0.128C/decade +/- 0.019
Okecie from 1960 is +0.379C/decade +/- 0.064
Vilnius from 1880 is +0.159C/decade +/- 0.020
Vilnius from 1960 is +0.420C/decade +/- 0.064
Did you actually do any linear regressions, or was your check of these 100, 95, sorry 82 weather stations by eyeball?
ren
Maybe I owe you this time an apology:
https://tinyurl.com/o48zatw8
Looks pretty good like kinda SSW.
It has very few in common with that experienced at the end of January 2019 in Northern CONUS, but…
J.-P. D.
Bindidon.it is different because the Arctic Ocean is already very cold in February.
Believing in Six degrees of Impossible warming from CO2 Before Breakfast , hockey sticks so forth and what not
https://youtu.be/19q1i-wAUpY
Ha ha ha haaah
GWPF TV, das ist ja echt geil.
Bravo Eben!
eben…”Believing in Six degrees of Impossible warming from CO2…”
Interesting how ckaotic systems like climate average out to zero in the long term. Also, how the Navier-Stokes equation, which are the basis of climate models, have no solutions in such a chaotic system. Unless of course. you fix the parameters using bs inferences.
BTW…Gerlich and Tscheuschner pointed that out more than ten years ago. They revealed there are no computers with the computing power to forecast our climate.
That’s why Binny is laughing so hard, this stuff is waa-a-a-a-a-y over his head. He can’t understand libration never mind differential equation theory.
He is laughing like a debil with nothing to say, only has to leave his piss mark in the post
Ha ha ha.
The guy is lecturing to an empty room.
Hilarious.
Written in June 2020 by Seth Jones, CSIS:
“First, far-right terrorism has significantly outpaced terrorism from other types of perpetrators, including from far-left networks and individuals inspired by the Islamic State and al-Qaeda. Right-wing attacks and plots account for the majority of all terrorist incidents in the United States since 1994, and the total number of right-wing attacks and plots has grown significantly during the past six years. Right-wing extremists perpetrated two thirds of the attacks and plots in the United States in 2019 and over 90 percent between January 1 and May 8, 2020. Second, terrorism in the United States will likely increase over the next year in response to several factors. One of the most concerning is the 2020 U.S. presidential election, before and after which extremists may resort to violence, depending on the outcome of the election. Far-right and far-left networks have used violence against each other at protests, raising the possibility of escalating violence during the election period.”
As he correctly foreshadowed, right-wingers are much more of a menace to society than left-wingers.
student…”As he correctly foreshadowed, right-wingers are much more of a menace to society than left-wingers”.
We saw very recently that the so-called left-wingers opposing Trump and the US police burned buildings, police cars, and caused millions of dollars worth of damage. They also killed people and injured them.
I have yet to see one instance of right wing violence that comes near to that kind of anarchy. I don’t call the White House invasion a terrorist act. Some people got hurt but I don’t think violence was the intent. It was far more a case of simple a civil disobedience based protest.
Hey…when I was an engineer, some of the guys invaded the British Columbia legislature and stole the Speaker’s chair, leaving a small pyramid in its place. It was a prank. We have a cannon in a local park that is fired every night at 9 o’clock. The engineers stole it as well. They took it back to the metallurgical engineering faculty and repaired it, removing rust and repainting it.
To hear the howls of protest from city aldermen and the media you’d think a major terrorist attack had taken place. There was egg all over their faces when they learned the Speaker’s chair was being held ransom for donations to the Children’s Fund. Same with the cannon.
I am a left-winger, one who stands for democracy and equality for all. The idiots being labelled left-wingers these days have nothing to do with left-wing ideals. And, no, those left-wing ideals have nothing to do with the brutal Stalinist regime or the current violent regimes like China and other countries.
CSIS is a Canadian security agency and Canada is a socialism (social democracy to the politically-correct), which is based on true left-wing principles. I have seen no so-called left-wing terrorists working out of Canada. We’re too busy watching hockey games.
I have no idea what CSIS is thinking about when they refer to left-wing factions. I have seen no honest left-wing activity since the last time I stood on a union picket line. Even at that, many of the guys on the line were capitalists who had no interest in socialism or left-wing ideals.
The notion has been out there for a while that people who engage in civil disobedience are left-wing anarchists. It means essentially, that anyone willfully crossing the street against a red light (civil disobedience) is a left-wing anarchists. I recall while attending union rallies, there were undercover police filming individuals. I could not understand why they were wasting their time.
I have been involved with men who willingly committed civil disobedience here in Canada, and willing to face jail time, but not one of them was un-Canadian or interested in over-throwing the government. In fact, if Canada came under attack, they’d be the first to sign up in the Canadian forces to oppose such an attack.
Facts are facts, no matter how unpalatable:
“Right-wing extremists perpetrated two thirds of the attacks and plots in the United States in 2019 and over 90 percent between January 1 and May 8, 2020.”
“I dont call the White House invasion a terrorist act. Some people got hurt but I dont think violence was the intent. ”
Everybody, just look at this statement and ponder for a while.
Where is Swenson when we need him to shout out his favourite accusation: “delusional” ?
I am sorry. Swenson is having his dinner at the moment. It will take some time because he dribbles a lot.
s,
What is your point?
Sigh. The point is …. forget it.
Finish your dinner before it gets cold.
Left wing are incapable of planning
Eco-Terrorists shoot at Christy and Spencer
https://youtu.be/EpZKm6PR5LQ
Roy posted about that here a few yeara ago. No one knows who did it or why.
Bindidon,
continuous rainfall in the Rhine basin threatens to floods.
https://www.accuweather.com/pl/de/national/weather-radar
Gordon Robertson,
the forecasts show a dramatic drop in temperature in Canada.
https://i.ibb.co/y65sVMW/ecmwf-T850-namer-6.png
ren…”Gordon Robertson,
the forecasts show a dramatic drop in temperature in Canada”.
Canada covers a very large area. Here on the SW coast, near Vancouver, we’ve had no snow at sea level and only a sprinkling at 600 feet. So far, no Arctic air…very mild recently with lots of rain. Lots!!!
Typical La Nina conditions. It’s flooding in California. Roads are being washed out along the Northern California coastline.
We have been expecting the cold but so far there has been nothing. Two forecasts of cold and snow were wrong. Hard to predict weather around here due to the warm air pushing in from the Pacific.
ren…ps…don’t like all that blue on the map.
Gordon look at the pressure in the North (1056 hPa!). In the Arctic above Canada, the pressure will reach 1065 hPa!
ren…”Gordon look at the pressure in the North (1056 hPa!). In the Arctic above Canada, the pressure will reach 1065 hPa!”
You are right. The forecast for next week is very cold, well below zero C.
Thanks for the info.
“The forecast for next week is very cold, well below zero C…”
Do you really believe that forecast? After all, it is based on a computer model. In fact, probably the same model used to predict climate change. And it also uses the fake data manipulated by NASA et al.
Remember that “climate is just the average of weather” therefore by the same reasoning climate forecasts are just the average of weather forecasts! It follows that the weather forecasts, which are notoriously inaccurate, should be ignored!
You slavishly pay attention to them only when they predict cool conditions. I call that hypocrisy.
–“The forecast for next week is very cold, well below zero C…”
Do you really believe that forecast? After all, it is based on a computer model.–
It is computer model, but it’s based upon a huge amount of measurement, without this daily constant huge amount of measuring,
the models predicting a couple days in future, would fail badly.
OK, I updated by list and removed duplicates and am now up to 103 unique stations. I won’t republish the list. I want to challenge those that attacked by honesty above to provide their evidence.
I also want to define the issue, and how to refute any of my claims.
This is one of the charts I identified. There are certain characteristics that demonstrate no uptrend in temperatures.
1) High volatility that can’t be explained by CO2
2) No continual series of higher highs and higher lows over the entire period
3) Current or recent temperatures are below levels set in the early 1900s.
4) Current temperatures are not at an all-time high, or if they are, they have had a recent spike in temperatures that couldn’t be caused by CO2
Punta Arenas (53.0S, 70.967W) ID:CI000085934
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=CI000085934&dt=1&ds=15
This is what an uptrend looks like, and is due to construction (UHI), not CO2.
1) Current temperatures are clearly above the early 1900s
2) You have a series of higher highs and higher lows
3) Recent high temperatures aren’t the result of a spike
Fort Simpson (61.7667N, 121.2333W) ID:CA002202115
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=CA002202115&dt=1&ds=15
For those who challenged by credibility, please demonstrate by posting a link to the sites that I posted that do not fit the definition of not haveing an uptrend in temperatures.
Ok, so I chose one that was a neighbour to Punta Arenas. Got an upward trend first try.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=CIXLT002335&ds=15&dt=1
Have you thought about Bindidon’s work getting all desert locations and finding there is an upward trend if you average all their trends?
And have you responded to numerous people saying that not every place in the world will have trends dominated by warming, but that the average will be?
Weather effects have more influence at the local level, so some places may buck the global trend if weather patterns change over the course of time.
Here is the change in global temps since mid 1900s.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Change_in_Average_Temperature.svg
You can see that there are still a few regions that cooled, even with general warming. If the resolution gets finer, you can see some cooling locations dotted around the globe, but the average of them all is warming.
The world is not a featureless billiard ball, and CO2 is not the only thing affecting temperatures, especially at single locations. There is no reason to expect a uniform, monotonic response to rising CO2 everywhere.
binny…”For all visitors who are irritated by UAHs abrupt change of the reference period, here are the offsets you have to add to monthly anomalies ”
Give it up. Look at an old mercury thermometer and see if you can find the difference in the height of the mercury column.
The inhalation of elemental mercury vapours can cause neurological and behavioural disorders, such as tremors, emotional instability, insomnia, memory loss, neuromuscular changes and headaches. They can also harm the kidneys and thyroid. High exposures have also led to deaths.
Explains a lot.
n,
Inhale mercury vapour on a regular basis, do you?
How are the headaches ?
nurse crotchrot..”The inhalation of elemental mercury vapours can cause neurological and behavioural disorders…”
Look what its done to you. has you cross-dressing, claiming to be a nurse, and raving about who knows what.
Maybe your symptoms have nothing to do with your mercury thermometer. Maybe they can be explained by the fact that you are Canadian (with some inbreeding thrown in for good measure).
From Six degrees to zero, Venus fallacy , mob attacks, climate shysters and such
https://youtu.be/9EkKsuCmdpw
Crikey digger!.
Where did you unearth this “drongo”? We here in Oz have never heard of this “wally” – nor his university which must be “back of beyond”.
I suspect he is all “piss and wind” and has got his facts “arse about face”. In fact, he sounds “as barmy as a Bandicoot” and “wouldn’t know if he was Arthur or Martha”.
“Oo roo”!
MJ…”We here in Oz have never heard of this wally nor his university which must be back of beyond.”
No surprise, you don’t don’t sound like the type who would know where to look for a university.
lol. And if the arctic ice completely melted, it wouldnt add 1 penny to sea level. But we never see the oh so studious bdgxw mention that. Nor do he and bindidon mention that the global average temperature is 60F. Because that wrecks their narrative.
cadbury
Stop your nonsense.
I never and never put sea ice melting and sea level change together.
That is rather what people like you post in order to discredit others.
The effect of ice melt – regardless whether sea ice or ice sheet – is, in the Northwestern Atlantic, quite another one.
I wrote about that already, no need to replicate, and your sort of writing tells me you wouldn’t understand it anyway.
60F, hu? You US people aren’t even able to adapt yourself. Who uses your bloody Fahrenheit today, apart the US and its backyards here and there?
J.-P. D.
jay said: And if the arctic ice completely melted, it wouldnt add 1 penny to sea level. But we never see the oh so studious bdgxw mention that.
Actually I have. But so there is no confusion I’ll do so again now. Melting sea ice does not directly contribute to sea level rise.
jay said: Nor do he and bindidon mention that the global average temperature is 60F.
Actually I have. But so there is no confusion I’ll do so again now. According to Berkeley Earth and using the 5 centered mean updated as of 2020 the global mean temperature is 15.057C +/- 0.061. This is 59.1F.
jay said: Because that wrecks their narrative.
These facts and observations are consistent with the body evidence and theory that 1) the planet is warming and 2) agents modulated by human behavior are providing a significant net positive radiative force that is keeping the Earth Energy Imbalance significantly positive. This will result in continued thermal expansion of the ocean and melting of land ice which both directly effect sea level rise.
bdgwx, why don’t you share with us that “theory” that “adding CO2 to the atmosphere will raise surface temperatures”?
We know you like models. So show us the “model” to support your belief. Both the “steel greenhouse” and the “blue/green plates” have been debunked.
Where’s the physics to support your cult beliefs?
Clint R
You make the claim the “steel greenhouse” and “blue/green plates” have been debunked. Where has that been done. The only places I see the “steel greenhouse” debunked are on the contrarian blog run by the fanatic Joseph Postma. He is beyond reason and he shows poor knowledge of heat transfer physics.
Where do you find this debunking?
the “steel greenhouse” is based upon well established physics.
http://machineryequipmentonline.com/hydraulics-and-pneumatics/radiation-heat-transferradiation-shields-and-the-radiation-effects/
Read through this, you might learn something of value. You are wrong about the “steel greenhouse”
Making false claims with zero support makes you and idiot.
Support you claims or don’t make them. No one is interested in your lunatic opinions. Show some physics or shut up!
Norman, this has been explained before. Maybe you missed it.
In the “steel greenhouse” nonsense, the sphere must be emitting 480 W/m^2, for the shell to emit 240 W/m^2 to space. That requires the sphere (Earth) to be at a temperature of 303K. But Earth is only at 288 K. So the bogus “steel greenhouse” has Earth temperature 15 K hotter than it really is.
(And, once again, you don’t understand the link you found.)
ClintR
Instead of being an intentional idiot, describe what I do not understand in the link I posted. You are not able to do it because you are an idiot. If you had intelligence you could describe what you claim. You can’t, idiot!
And the steel greenhouse was not meant as a replica of Earth system. It was a point to show how the GHE works. That is all. The Earth has an atmospheric window that allows surface emitted IR to leave directly to space. The surface also has other mechanisms for removing energy from the surface and cooling it (latent and sensible heat loss).
If you did not have have evaporation or convection cooling the surface would be much warmer.
Get a brain, please. Your opinions suck! They are really bad, like fake news, fake everything. You are not capable of supporting any of your claims with valid science. You never have been able and it seems you are still not capable of doing this.
This is classic “Norman”, Norman. You’ve got the insults, false accusations, and a link you can’t understand. You’ve got it all there.
Classic!
And now you want to deny your own AGW nonsense! You want to deny that the “steel greenhouse” and “plates” have been used for years to “prove” the AGW nonsense.
The rats are leaving their sinking ship.
The link you found, but can’t understand, involves “high-reflectivity, low-emissivity radiation shields”:
“Radiation heat transfer between two surfaces can be reduced greatly by inserting a thin, high-reflectivity (low-emissivity) sheet of material between the two surfaces. Such highly reflective thin plates or shells are called radiation shields.”
Both the “steel greenhouse” and “plates” have emissivity = 1.0.
Denying and perverting reality is why you’re an idiot.
ClintR
In the link you can use any material to reduce the flow of heat.
A shiny object with low emissivity would make a superior heat shield, yes that is correct.
But in the equation you will find that if you have an emissivity of 1 (blackbody) you will still reduce the rate of heat transfer by half. If you have a low emissivity material you get much better results.
http://machineryequipmentonline.com/hydraulics-and-pneumatics/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/RADIATION-HEAT-TRANSFER-0076.jpg
If you put a one in for all the emissivities in the equation you reduce the heat flow by half.
If the shield had an emissivity of 0.1 and the other two plates are blackbodies you reduce the heat flow by 1/20.
The steel greenhouse works as a single blackbody shield between the heated object it surrounds and empty space. It would reduce the heat flow of the inner object by half.
Now you’ve made a complete loop, Norman. You’re just abusing your keyboard again.
The reduction “by half” results in the temperature difference by a factor of the fourth root of 2, or 1.189.
255K * 1.189 = 303K
But Earth is 288K, not 303K.
You’re back to the starting point. You’ve done a full “360” just spinning in place, learning nothing, like a complete idiot.
ClintR
I did not make a loop. The surface of the inner sphere in the “steel greenhouse” would be 303 K.
The Earth’s surface would be around that value as well if you did not have latent and sensible heat removing over 100 W/m^2 from the Earth’s surface.
I do not know where you got the information that the “steel greenhouse” is an exact replica of the energy balance for the Earth’s surface. From what I read on it, it was just a demonstration of the GHE. How a HEATED surface (continuous energy input) would increase in temperature if you put a shell around it. The shell would warm up and emit IR both ways. It would warm up until it emitted 240 W/m^2 out to space but when it reached this point it also emits 240 W/m^2 back to the surface forcing the HEATED surface to a higher temperature. When the surface of the inner sphere reaches 303 K it is emitting 480 W/m^2. Now it is in balance with the continuous input energy of 240 W/m^2. The heat loss is the amount of energy it emits minus the energy it receives from the outer shell 480-240.
ClintR
Please take the time to read section 3 of this article.
http://mafija.fmf.uni-lj.si/seminar/files/2015_2016/Thermal_radiation_heat_transfer_between_surfaces_Luka_Klobucar.pdf
The energy balance for a surface is how much energy it emits MINUS the amount it absorbs from its surroundings.
Norman, if you now want to admit that the “steel greenhouse”‘ and the “plates” are NOT representative of Earth, that’s an improvement. That’s all that is really important. It is not important for you to understand all of the physics involved.
And your second link adds nothing. Everyone knows about energy conservation, except idiots.
Idiots believe flux is conserved! As you once did, before I taught you correctly.
You did learn, didn’t you?
What steel greenhouse “proves” is you don’t need a sun nor an atmosphere, to keep a planet warm. But you would need a massive amount of geothermal energy.
One might see, that if you have ocean and atmosphere, and there is a much smaller amount of geothermal energy at the ocean sea floor, that could have a warming effect from geothermal energy.
A new thought, Willis Eschenbach, basically puts steel greenhouse high enough to avoid mountains {and he doesn’t even know what mountains would like in his mythical world.
Instead on cover a planet with ocean, making the surface level.
Then put steel greenhouse 5 feet above the ocean {and you could keep there by floating above the ocean- but don’t need to do that, but start it that way.
What happens?
“For our thought experiment, imagine a planet the size of the Earth, a perfect blackbody, heated from the interior at 235 watts per square metre of surface area.”
Instead put ball water with mass of the Moon at Neptune L-3
Perfect sphere, and frozen at surface.
Drop a bunch nuclear reactor on to the this dwarf planet, And going to sink them until 20 km below surface {and stop them sinking further]. 20 km depth on Earth is 29,000 psi, on Moon it’s 1/6th or
4,833 psi or equal to earth depth of 3,333.3 meters {which btw shallower than Earth ocean average depth}.
So, drop enough nuclear reactor so it will radiate 235 watts of energy globally at the surface. And once reactor reach 20 km depth or 4,833 psi, they not be hot enough to boil water at that pressure.
And 3226 psi {highest a ref gives] is 374 C and 706 F.
Or reactor designed not heat water over 400 C, and at 4,833 psi and at 400 C, I am guessing it’s not boiling the water. Though would be boiling the water until get somewhere nearer the 20 km depth. So math is done and there spaced evenly to get the 235 watts at the surface. And say these reactors run for 50 years at near constant output {and then are refueled/replaced}.
Now addition making electrical power from high pressure H20 steam, they want build a global roof and they going to ceiling 5 feet above the ice surface. And rather than having foundations on ice they going to be floating foundation of water.
And so build a steel greenhouse which will be 5 feet above waterline.
So world starts, close perfect vacuum and if surface is liquid or 0 C, then the partial pressure of 0 C H20 is 0.0060 atm or 0.0882 psi. Mars pressure is 0.095 psi so lower pressure than Mars, thin atmosphere]. But without steel greenhouse it’s suppose to 235 watt per square meter which some could imagine is about -18 C. Don’t have number of partial pressure of water at -18 C. Just using, this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapour_pressure_of_water
Also all electrical power used will done at 100 meter or lower below surface {100 meter has 24.5 psi pressure} or house air would need to be 24.5 psi to match the exterior pressure of water at 24.5 psi at 100 meter depth. {and iron ore and any carbon needed is imported}
Another aspect is heat gradient and going thru earth rock it’s about 25 K per km.
And the thermal conductivity of ice is similar to earth rock.
Or it appears granite conducts more heat and basalt conducts less
than ice.
And liquid has very poor thermal conductivity, but with temperature difference which add buoyancy water can transport heat by convection. So, water: 1.34 (at 0 °C) and ice 5.3 (0 °C):
https://www.britannica.com/science/rock-geology/Thermal-properties
basalt: 4.0 and granite: 7.8
If surface in vacuum is radiating 235 watt and said to -18 C and is heated internally, ice will be about 25 K warming 1 km below
the ice surface {25 – 18 = 7 C}
But if it’s 400 C and going to thru ice and 20 km down.
19 times 25 = 475 or minus -75 C
But 10 km up times 25 = 250 and 400 – 250 is water at 150 C and liquid water will not allow 25 C difference per km, as it will rise from convection.
So as long as has ice, it transport heat pretty well, once liquid it transport heat quickly if there is difference in temperature of
water but poorly if water temperature is near uniformity in temperature.
So for fun, before heat is added make it, radiates 235 watts. We start liquid water to make a good sphere, then let it cool so, have 50 km of ice near surface. And going tunnel thru ice down to 20 km
depth.
And to make “easier” to tunnel, we use radioactive heated sphere which is 1.5 meter in radius and has density of 10, with steel which is 8 and on outside of it. So earth that weighs, it volume of 14.14 cubic meters, so 141.1 ton. But in water it’s 9 = 127.26 tons and 1/6th gravity it weighs 21.21 tons. And have cable and with winch which can deal with as much 50 ton. And hot sphere is 400 C when in water.
So lower down until plus cable weight is 50 tons, then attach end cable to float which can float 50 tons. And then, lower another 1.5 radius sphere.
Meantime the hot sphere makes a larger hole in ice, then you remove it and then got big enough hole that one can lower the nuclear power plant into. And much later, than that, make the steel greenhouse- from the imported iron ore and the electrical power.
with the current global average temperature well below the geological average, it is pretty hard to isolate the human fingerprint. The sinks and sources are not fixed and the earth energy imbalance isn’t a fact, it’s an opinion. So when Pinatubo erupted and the ocean absorbed more carbon, we could say that’s an earth energy imbalance, lol. Oh hey! Did I just prove natural processes actually affect the temperature more than manmade?
Which geological period are you referring to?
No, the concept of an energy imbalance is not an opinion. It is a fact. It is actually one of the core tenets of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Ya know dEtot = Ein – Eout. And Earth’s Energy Imbalance (EEI) has been measured. It is currently at +0.87 W/m^2 +/- 0.12 (or +14 ZJ/year) https://tinyurl.com/34pjx4hj
No. The rate at which oceans absorb carbon is a completely different concept from the EEI.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
After a turbulent weekend with a blizzard and freezing rain, the new week is quieter. A cold peak over Scandinavia determines the weather here. The coldest winter week in years is looming for many regions, and the nights are particularly icy.
https://www.wetteronline.de/wetterticker/c74ca637-126c-4a89-9b40-f656d5742d98
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
As one can see the demise of Arctic Sea Ice is highly exaggerated.
In the 1930’s a similar situation played out.
So just like the hype on how this period of global warming is so unusual the same can be applied to the hype about Arctic Ice.
AGW theory should be called AGW hype theory.
Salvatore
” In the 1930s a similar situation played out. ”
Could you please come out with some data?
*
I recently processed the huge HadISST1 ICE data set, and can show you this:
1. Absolute Arctic sea ice from 1891 till now
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1g6fRg_qf5TjdKG9J-E20NTVivj_lphuk/view
We clearly can see: between 1891 and 1900, and during WW II, the data has been very sparse. But it’s better than nothing.
2. Some averages from then till now
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10qA6klNnFn_bo1DNOQZrPPa0fzWSvRYG/view
The most recent data was till October.
Hype? What hype?
J.-P. D.
Due to the unusually high pressure, the extent and thickness of the Arctic ice will increase significantly.
https://i.ibb.co/0jpDjNH/ecmwf-mslpa-nhem-4.png
GOOD news!
The polar vortex will split into three centers.
https://i.ibb.co/TTyJKBQ/gfs-z100-nh-f72.png
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2021/02/09/2100Z/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-39.59,96.60,296
According to your chart the last 4 years have remained near or below -2 SD below the average the entire time.
1930’s was similar.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=J2WsZKOF&id=FBBAD18383B9B9C6F120CCB559FFEFEEFAFA28CF&thid=OIP.J2WsZKOFCFUqO_xxsPdUkQHaEa&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fi0.wp.com%2fnotrickszone.com%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2018%2f08%2fArctic-sea-ice-since-1900.png&exph=397&expw=667&q=arctic+ice+in+the+1930&simid=608045444188864550&ck=C6610B879B565C06E73911092273E9FC&selectedIndex=0&qpvt=arctic+ice+in+the+1930&FORM=IRPRST&ajaxhist=0
1930 Arctic ice.
Salvatore
One more time, garbage from one of the trickiest blogs evah.
Sorry, Gosselin is a specialist in photoshopping original data until it fits to his pseudoskeptic agenda.
J.-P. D.
No it is not . 1930’s was a period of low Arctic Ice similar to now.
Salvatore
Now I remember that paper written in 2016 by Alekseev, Glock and Smirnoff, published by the Connolly bros and Willie Soon a year later.
Their reconstruction was based on a proxy – what Skeptics discredit anyway, unless it is ‘per la buona causa’, of course.
And… what was that proxy? OMG.
It was… the inverse of the Arctic temperature!
If any ‘Nonskeptic’ would do the same, even when using UAH as temperature proxy, s/he would be shot dead unisono by all Skeptics on Earth!
A far better proxy would be the sequence of observations collected by DMI since 1900, sored at NSID-C:
https://tinyurl.com/13zb5xfg
J.-P. D.
OK, now I’ve removed duplicates and relaxed the BI Restriction and now I’m up to 140 sites that show no continuous uptrend over the past 120 years. The screen shows that there are 1121 Stations that have data since Dec 1900. That means that over 10% of weather stations show no warming, and I’ve just started looking. Rarely do I find a station that shows a definitive uptrend, and they are mostly city locations. Regression trends on this kind of volatile data are worthless. The R-Squares are near or at 0.00. People that see trends in these charts simply don’t know how to read charts.
Steveston (49.1333N, 123.1833W) ID:CA001107710
Maiduguri (11.8500N, 13.0830E) ID:NIM00065082
Zanzibar (6.222S, 39.2250E) ID:TZM00063870
Laghouat (33.7997N, 2.8900E) ID:AGE00147719
Luqa (35.8500N, 14.4831E) ID:MT000016597
Ponta Delgada (37.7410N, 25.698W) ID:POM00008512
Wauseon Wtp (41.5183N, 84.1453W) ID:USC00338822
Valentia Observatory (51.9394N, 10.2219W) ID:EI000003953
Dombaas (62.0830N, 9.1170E) ID:NOM00001233
Okecie (52.1660N, 20.9670E) ID:PLM00012375
Vilnius (54.6331N, 25.1000E) ID:LH000026730
Vardo (70.3670N, 31.1000E) ID:NO000098550
Port Blair (11.6670N, 92.7170E) ID:IN099999901
Nagpur Sonegaon (21.1000N, 79.0500E) ID:IN012141800
Indore (22.7170N, 75.8000E) ID:IN011170400
Enisejsk (58.4500N, 92.1500E) ID:RSM00029263
Vladivostok (43.8000N, 131.9331E) ID:RSM00031960
Nikolaevsk Na Amure (53.1500N, 140.7164E) ID:RSM00031369
Nemuro (43.3330N, 145.5830E) ID:JA000047420
York (31.8997S, 116.7650E) ID:ASN00010311
Albany (35.0289S, 117.8808E) ID:ASN00009500
Adelaide West Terrace (34.9254S, 138.5869E) ID:ASN00023000
Yamba Pilot Station (29.4333S, 153.3633E) ID:ASN00058012
Wilsons Promontory Lighthouse (39.1297S, 146.4244E) ID:ASN00085096
Mount Gambier Post Office (37.8333S, 140.7833E) ID:ASN00026020
Cape Otway Lighthouse (38.8556S, 143.5128E) ID:ASN00090015
Lencois (12.567S, 41.383W) ID:BR047571250
Eagle (64.7856N, 141.2036W) ID:USC00502607
Orland (39.7458N, 122.1997W) ID:USC00046506
Bahia Blanca Aero (38.733S, 62.167W) ID:AR000877500
Punta Arenas (53.0S, 70.967W) ID:CI000085934
Brazzaville (4.25S, 15.2500E) ID:CF000004450
Durban Intl (29.97S, 30.9510E) ID:SFM00068588
Port Elizabeth Intl (33.985S, 25.6170E) ID:SFM00068842
Sandakan (5.9000N, 118.0670E) ID:MY000096491
Aparri (18.3670N, 121.6330E) ID:RP000098232
Darwin Airport (12.4239S, 130.8925E) ID:ASN00014015
Palmerville (16.0008S, 144.0758E) ID:ASN00028004
Coonabarabran Namoi Street (31.2712S, 149.2714E) ID:ASN00064008
Newcastle Nobbys Signal Stati (32.9185S, 151.7985E) ID:ASN00061055
Moruya Heads Pilot Station (35.9093S, 150.1532E) ID:ASN00069018
Omeo (37.1017S, 147.6008E) ID:ASN00083090
Gabo Island Lighthouse (37.5679S, 149.9158E) ID:ASN00084016
Echucaaerodrome (36.1647S, 144.7642E) ID:ASN00080015
Maryborough (37.056S, 143.7320E) ID:ASN00088043
Longerenong (36.6722S, 142.2991E) ID:ASN00079028
Christchurch Intl (43.489S, 172.5320E) ID:NZM00093780
Hokitika Aerodrome (42.717S, 170.9830E) ID:NZ000936150
Auckland Aero Aws (37.0S, 174.8000E) ID:NZM00093110
St Paul Island Ap (57.1553N, 170.2222W) ID:USW00025713
Nome Muni Ap (64.5111N, 165.44W) ID:USW00026617
Kodiak Ap (57.7511N, 152.4856W) ID:USW00025501
Dawson A (64.0500N, 139.1333W) ID:CA002100402
Atlin (59.5667N, 133.7W) ID:CA001200560
Juneau Intl Ap (58.3567N, 134.5639W) ID:USW00025309
Skagway (59.4547N, 135.3136W) ID:USC00508525
Hay River A (60.8333N, 115.7833W) ID:CA002202400
Prince Albert A (53.2167N, 105.6667W) ID:CA004056240
Kamloops A (50.7000N, 120.45W) ID:CA001163780
Banff (51.1833N, 115.5667W) ID:CA003050520
Mina (38.3844N, 118.1056W) ID:USC00265168
Merced Muni Ap (37.2847N, 120.5128W) ID:USW00023257
So Entr Yosemite Np (37.5122N, 119.6331W) ID:USC00048380
Santa Maria (34.9500N, 120.4333W) ID:USC00047940
Maricopa (35.0833N, 119.3833W) ID:USC00045338
Ojai (34.4478N, 119.2275W) ID:USC00046399
Death Valley (36.4622N, 116.8669W) ID:USC00042319
Rio Grande City (26.3769N, 98.8117W) ID:USC00417622
Beeville 5 Ne (28.4575N, 97.7061W) ID:USC00410639
Carlsbad (32.3478N, 104.2225W) ID:USC00291469
Burnet (30.7586N, 98.2339W) ID:USC00411250
Mtn Park (32.9539N, 105.8225W) ID:USC00295960
Williams (35.2414N, 112.1928W) ID:USC00029359
Needles Ap (34.7675N, 114.6189W) ID:USW00023179
Loa (38.4058N, 111.6433W) ID:USC00425148
Priest River Exp Stn (48.3511N, 116.8353W) ID:USC00107386
Republic (48.6469N, 118.7314W) ID:USC00456974
Rangely 1E (40.0892N, 108.7722W) ID:USC00056832
Lovelock (40.1906N, 118.4767W) ID:USC00264698
Pendleton (45.6906N, 118.8528W) ID:USW00024155
Nevada City (39.2467N, 121.0008W) ID:USC00046136
Culbertson (48.1503N, 104.5089W) ID:USC00242122
Indian Head Cda (50.5500N, 103.65W) ID:CA004013480
Sherman (33.7033N, 96.6419W) ID:USC00418274
Ballinger 2 Nw (31.7414N, 99.9764W) ID:USC00410493
Ocala (29.1639N, 82.0778W) ID:USC00086414
Akron 4 E (40.1550N, 103.1417W) ID:USC00050109
Yates Ctr (37.8786N, 95.7292W) ID:USC00149080
Alfred (42.2497N, 77.7583W) ID:USC00300085
Georgetown (6.8000N, 58.15W) ID:GYM00081001
Casa Blancala Habana (23.1670N, 82.35W) ID:CUM00078325
Ft Kent (47.2386N, 68.6136W) ID:USC00172878
Moosonee (51.2833N, 80.6W) ID:CA006075420
Jackman (45.6275N, 70.2583W) ID:USC00174086
Columbia Rgnl Ap (38.8169N, 92.2183W) ID:USW00003945
Srinagar (34.0830N, 74.8330E) ID:IN008010200
Olekminsk (60.4000N, 120.4167E) ID:RSM00024944
Turkestan (43.2700N, 68.2200E) ID:KZ000038198
Shimla (31.1000N, 77.1670E) ID:IN007101600
Silvio Pettirossi Intl (25.24S, 57.519W) ID:PAM00086218
El Golea (30.5667N, 2.8667E) ID:AG000060590
Salamanca Aeropuerto (40.9592N, 5.4981W) ID:SP000008202
Kahler Asten Wst (51.1817N, 8.4900E) ID:GME00111457
Coloso (18.3808N, 67.1569W) ID:RQC00662801
Nassau Airport New (25.0500N, 77.467W) ID:BF000078073
Tarpon Spgs Sewage Pl (28.1522N, 82.7539W) ID:USC00088824
Cape Hatteras Ap (35.2325N, 75.6219W) ID:USW00093729
Hamburg (40.5511N, 75.9914W) ID:USC00363632
Charlottetown A (46.2833N, 63.1167W) ID:CA008300301
Saint Johnsbury (44.4200N, 72.0194W) ID:USC00437054
Lake Placid 2 S (44.2489N, 73.985W) ID:USC00304555
Elmira (42.0997N, 76.8358W) ID:USC00302610
Franklin (41.4003N, 79.8306W) ID:USC00363028
Sparta (43.9364N, 90.8164W) ID:USC00477997
La Harpe (40.5839N, 90.9686W) ID:USC00114823
Ashley (46.0406N, 99.3742W) ID:USC00320382
Tooele (40.5353N, 112.3217W) ID:USC00428771
Lander Hunt Fld Ap (42.8153N, 108.7261W) ID:USW00024021
Green River (41.5167N, 109.4703W) ID:USC00484065
Kennebec (43.9072N, 99.8628W) ID:USC00394516
Cooperstown (42.7167N, 74.9267W) ID:USC00301752
Marshall (39.1342N, 93.2225W) ID:USW00013991
Imperial (40.5208N, 101.655W) ID:USC00254110
Milan 1 Nw (45.1219N, 95.9269W) ID:USC00215400
Grundy Ctr (42.3647N, 92.7594W) ID:USC00133487
Laramie Rgnl Ap (41.3119N, 105.6747W) ID:USW00024022
Curtis 3Nne (40.6742N, 100.4936W) ID:USC00252100
Laketown (41.8250N, 111.3208W) ID:USC00424856
Springview (42.8222N, 99.7467W) ID:USC00258090
Culbertson (40.2333N, 100.8292W) ID:USC00252065
Deseret (39.2872N, 112.6519W) ID:USC00422101
Lamoni (40.6233N, 93.9508W) ID:USC00134585
Vestmannaeyjar (63.4000N, 20.2831W) ID:IC000004048
Akureyri (65.6800N, 18.0794W) ID:IC000004063
Maliye Karmakuly (72.3794N, 52.7300E) ID:RSM00020744
Torshavn (62.0170N, 6.767W) ID:DAM00006011
Oestersund (63.1831N, 14.4831E) ID:SWE00100026
Karlstad (59.3500N, 13.4667E) ID:SW000024180
Linkoeping (58.4000N, 15.5331E) ID:SW000008525
Torungen Fyr (58.3831N, 8.7917E) ID:NO000001465
I decided to start at the bottom of your list this time.
Torungen Fyr from 1880 is +0.093C/decade +/- 0.018
Torungen Fyr from 1960 is +0.354C/decade +/- 0.058
As you an see there is a statistically significant warming trend from 1880-2020 and 1960-2020.
You’ll have to forgive me if I’m suspicious regarding the other sites in your list since the first station I checked has a large warming trend. But that is moot because no one thinks you can derive an accurate global mean temperature trend from 140 cherry-picked sites. So my question for you is…what result do you get for the warming trend when you plug in all 27,000+ GHCN-M stations into a routine that computes the global mean temperature?
bdgwx, regressions mean absolutely nothing on volatile data sets like that when put in the context of a continually increasing function. CO2 is claimed to “trap” heat. CO2 increase from 300 to 410 during that time.
Without even looking at the site you identified, I’m sure that temperatures within the last decade are below the levels reached back around 1900. If the current levels are at or near an all time high, it would have occurred due to a spike in temperatures which most likely died after the recent El Nino. There is no trend. There is no series of higher highs and higher lows. Spikes aren’t due to CO2, they are due to the UHI, fewer clouds, etc etc, but not CO2.
Once again, show an uptrend. Here, I went and looked up the station. No one that knows how to read a chart would consider this an uptrend.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=NO000001465&dt=1&ds=15
Observations:
1) Current levels 2015 are way below the level set in 1880
2) Current level is barely above the level set in 1882 and below the level in 1950
3) Current high temperature is the result of a spike in temperature that is quickly collapsing
4) Start the regression in 1882 and end in 2015 and the slope will be negative
5) A near by site shows even flatter temperatures
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=NOE00105483&ds=15&dt=1
No one that knows how to read a chart would consider this an uptrend.
I don’t know what to tell you here.
Excel’s LINEST function outputs for Torungen Fyr…
+0.093C/decade +/- 0.018 from 1880-2020
+0.354C/decade +/- 0.058 from 1960-2020
+0.086C/decade +/- 0.018 from 1882-2015
…those are statistically significant trends.
And the 5yr centered mean in 2015 is 8.84 and in 1882 it is 7.16.
For Oksoey Fyr I get…
+0.084C/decade +/- 0.016 from 1880-2020
+0.360C/decade +/- 0.056 from 1960-2020
+0.066C/decade +/- 0.016 from 1882-2015
…which again is statistically significant.
bdgwx, what you are referencing is a least-squares line slope. That is totally meaningless for demonstrating the impact of CO2 over temperatures because CO2 only adds W/M^2 to a system. The line you are referring has an R-Squared of around 0.00. In other words, basically it is a random meaningless line. If a Data set had 18 degrees in 1880, and in 1990 it had 16 degrees, clearly CO2 didn’t cause warming even if current temperatures are 20 Degrees. That kind of variability simply can’t be caused by CO2. Even if the current temperature is a record high, that doesn’t mean it was caused by CO2 is just 4 or 5 years ago it was below the level of 1880. You have to show a sustained continual increase tied to W/M^2 over the past 140 years to blame it on CO2. You can’t find that anywhere in these charts. The only significant uptrends in temperatures you will find are in the Cities.
Also, the statistically significant beta isn’t meaningful either, and is 100% time period dependent. Stop the data series 10 of so years earlier and your beta will be the opposite sign.
What would be statistically significant is if the current temperatures are 2 or 3 standard deviations above the mean. I doubt you will find that in any data sets.
Anyway, if you are going to publish the LINEST, also publish the results for the R-Squared so we can determine the validity of the regression line. The Excel Function is =RSQ(). Time is the X-Axis and Temp is the Y-Axis.
When you include the RSQ you will see that your regressions are meaningless. RSQ below 70 would be considered meaningless in most sciences, even the social sciences.
bdgwx, what you are referencing is a least-squares line slope. That is totally meaningless for demonstrating the impact of CO2 over temperatures because CO2 only adds W/M^2 to a system.
The entire exercise has little relevance in demonstrating the impact of CO2 because 1) it is for a single site and 2) there are a bunch of factors that determine the y-values with no effort taken to control for those factors. Both of these facts make it difficult to impossible to determine the impact of CO2 has on a global scale.
If you want to determine CO2’s impact you need to 1) work with the global mean temperature trajectory and 2) remove non-CO2 influencing components from that trajectory.
The line you are referring has an R-Squared of around 0.00.
LINEST provides the R^2 value. It is the same as RSQ. For Torungen Fyr is was 0.2.
In other words, basically it is a random meaningless line.
No. It is not. Those trends ARE statistically significant. The R^2 is ~0.2 because the standard deviation of the y-values is high. There is a lot of variability of those annual means. That means the trend has limited skill in predicting the exact y-values from the x-values. That is not be confused with the trends ability to predict the trajectory of the y-values relative to the x-values. And it does that with statistically significant skill. The y-values rise as x-values rise. Another way to think about this is to consider what condition results in an R^2 of 1. R^2 = 1 occurs when every annual mean lies exactly on the trend line itself. In other words, there is perfect correlation when the temperature trajectory is a perfectly linear line. So the R^2 value is really telling you how straight the temperature trajectory is. It’s not very straight. We already known that.
That kind of variability simply can’t be caused by CO2.
Duh! That is exactly what we’ve been trying to tell you. CO2, by itself, is not adequate to explain the variability of temperatures on the spatial and temporal scales you are focused on here. There is no scientist that seriously considers the hypothesis “CO2 explains all temperature variability on all spatial and temporal scales” to be viable. We’ve all known this false for a long time.
CO2isLife
I have to totally agree with bdgwx. The graph you posted most certainly has an upward trend and you can easily discern this without use of drawing a line through the graph.
If you look at the graph after 1990 you find 4 annual mean annual temperatures above 9 C and NONE before it.
Not sure how you read graphs but you are wrong on this point.
Norman Says: CO2isLife
I have to totally agree with bdgwx. The graph you posted most certainly has an upward trend.
Wrong, especially when put in the context of the molecule we are attempting to model. CO2 has one and only one mechanism to impact Climate Change, that being the log decay increase in W/M^2. That is the only defined mechanism. Therefor CO2 can only cause a gradual and marginally declining increase in temperatures. Therefor there is no way for temperatures to ever fall, because CO2 can only drive temperatures higher, and they do it very very very gradually.
With that understanding, let’s look at the chart that you claim shows an “Uptrend.”
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=NO000001465&dt=1&ds=15
1) The range established between 1880 and 1920 persists to this day
2) The range gets broken about 1990 after a sharp increase in temperatures which can’t be caused by CO2
3) There are 3 periods of trends 1880 to 1950 (UP) 1950 to 1990 (DN) 1990 to 2020 (UP)
4) Except for a few short-lived peaks post-1980, the range established between 1880 and 1920 holds.
5) Once again, to blame CO2 you have to identify a sustained continual increase in temperatures, not a recent spink. That doesn’t constitute a trend.
6) The R-Squared of your regression line would be very low
7) 90% of the data falls below the peak set in 1920
8) A recent spurt in temperatures is evidence CO2 isn’t causing the warming.
This is what a real uptrend looks like:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=ASN00091293&dt=1&ds=15
The current temperature range is clearly and permanently outside the range established between 1880 and 1920. Temperatures march higher from under 12 to over 14.5. No one would disagree that the post 1945 data doesn’t represent an uptrend. You simply don’t have anything near that in the chart I addressed above. You have variability, that is all, you have no trend.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=NO000001465&dt=1&ds=15
That shows a clear uptrend.
The simplest way to find out better than your eyes if there is a trend in the data is to do a linear regression. The fact that you are dismissing that in favour of your personal ‘analysis’ speaks volumes. Tests like linear regresssion are there to stop us fooling ourselves. If you’re going to talk about ‘trend’, you have to employ the tools or sit back down.
UAh Data doesn’t show an uptrend in temperatures:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_January_2021_v6-550×317.jpg
1) A regression would have a very low R-Squared
2) The coefficient is highly dependent upon time frame
3) The data starts during the unusually cold “Coming Ice Age” Era
4) CO2 isn’t volatile, temperatures are
5) The level in 1980 and 2018 are nearly identical
6) CO2 gradually adds W/M^2 in a log-decay function
7) CO2 doesn’t cause spikes and collapses
8) A regression starting in 1997 would show flat or falling temperatures
9) Eliminate El Ninos and the regression would be nearly flat over the entire time period
10) Current temps are below 1987 and near 1980
11) If CO2 “traps” heat, there is no way temperatures would be below 1987 levels unless it doesn’t “trap heat”
12) There is no way the current level is 2 or 3 standard deviations above the mean
13) Highly variable temperature measurements is evidence something other than CO2 is impacting the temperatures, the IPCC doesn’t even try to explain that residual and their models don’t work.
CO2isLife
It does seem they are aware of one large influence that causes cooling and that would be large volcanoes. They may cool the surface for a few a years and cause large spikes in the temperature record.
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/e-print/open/greenhouse_2000e.htm
Norman, simply look at the results of their models. They fail in modeling the temperatures because they have CO2 as the most significant variable. It is that simple. That is why they are trying to “adjust” the date to make it more linear. They need a linear trend in temperature to match the near linear trend in CO2. Otherwise their R-Squared of their models is near 0.00 and meaningless. If they can’t model the temp, they need to adjust the data to produce the desired output. The marginal W/M^2 increases due to CO2 aren’t linear, so their adjustments to the temperature prove it is a deliberate fraud, otherwise the adjustments would show a log decay. They don’t. They all project a linear increase.
CO2isLife said: If CO2 traps heat, there is no way temperatures would be below 1987 levels unless it doesnt trap heat
Oceans are taking up huge amounts of heat. tinyurl.com/12vln336
And the Earth Energy Imbalance is +0.87 W/m^2 +/- 0.12. tinyurl.com/34pjx4hj
Burn this into your brain.
CO2 is not the only factor that modulates temperatures on small spatial or temporal scales.
And not to be forgotten…CO2 is not even the only thing that modulates temperatures globally over long periods of time either.
“Oceans are taking up huge amounts of heat. tinyurl.com/12vln336”
That is my point. Visible Radiation, not LWIR between 13 and 18µ, warms the oceans. If the oceans are warming there are a few issues:
1) Fewer clouds and more radiation is reaching the oceans to warm them
2) Fewer El Ninos and Huricanes to release the extra accumulated energy
Neither of the above are due to CO2.
My point was that 90% of the EEI goes into the ocean. The ocean has a lot of thermal mass and inertia whereas the atmosphere does not. We expect that temperature variability of the ocean to be more narrowly constrained relative to the atmosphere. In other words, there is high variability in the atmosphere and low variability in the hydrosphere. This is all expected regardless of the contributing cases for the positive EEI.
Anyway, clouds are complicated. Fewer low clouds have a net positive radiative force, but fewer high clouds have a net negative radiative force. But you’re still in a pickle here because you haven’t explain why cloud patterns have changed. If you don’t know why cloud patterns have changed then you can’t eliminate CO2 as the cause yet.
bdgwx, your “EEI” is nonsense. This has been explained to you before. Why do you reject reality?
* Flux is NOT energy. Flux is NOT conserved. Outgoing flux does NOT equal incoming flux, as Norman learned the hard way.
* Fluxes can’t be treated as simple numbers. Fluxes are not simple scalars.
Rejecting reality makes you an idiot. Clinging to false beliefs makes you a cultist.
b,
Oceans dont trap heat. Neither does anything else.
Give it a try. Trap some heat.
Ho ho ho!
–Swenson says:
February 7, 2021 at 12:53 AM
b,
Oceans dont trap heat. Neither does anything else.
Give it a try. Trap some heat.
Ho ho ho!–
Solar ponds “trap” heat.
The ocean is roughly a solar pond. Or solar ponds are wrecked by rain and wind, oceans “like” wind and rain. Or the ocean “solar pond” is “unaffected” by wind or rain, and sort of “works” because of waves. {solar pond must have still water}. But an ocean does not “work” for humans, it warms the entire world- it’s wild animal.
And the Earth Energy Imbalance is +0.87 W/m^2 +/- 0.12. tinyurl.com/34pjx4hj
In another recent study they found a negative trend in the last 2 decades.
Remote Sensing | Free Full-Text | Decadal Changes of the Reflected Solar Radiation and the Earth Energy Imbalance | HTML (mdpi.com)
As a result, over the 20002018 period the Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) appears to have a downward trend of −0.16 0.11 W/m2dec. The EEI trend agrees with a trend of the Ocean Heat Content Time Derivative of −0.26 0.06 (1 σ ) W/m2dec.
Andre, thanks for linking that 9/2020 paper using the CERES results reported by Loeb et. al. in the satellite period:
“Over the period 1971-2018 average EEI amounts to 0.47 +/- 0.1 W m-2, but (EEI from CERES satellite observation)) amounts to 0.87 +/- 0.12 W m-2 during 2010-2018 (Fig. 8).”
“UAh Data doesn’t show an uptrend in temperatures”
Yes, it does. In fact UAH provide those trends for you on their data page for UAH lower troposphere:
https://tinyurl.com/y62sq3xo
Look down the bottom, you’ll see the global trend: 0.14 C/decade.
Or you can perform a linear regression and also take into account autocorrelation, and get a result of:
0.137 C/decade (+/- 0.051)
Yep, that is a statistically significant warming trend.
Enjoy this tool:
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=J2WsZKOF&id=FBBAD18383B9B9C6F120CCB559FFEFEEFAFA28CF&thid=OIP.J2WsZKOFCFUqO_xxsPdUkQHaEa&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fi0.wp.com%2fnotrickszone.com%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2018%2f08%2fArctic-sea-ice-since-1900.png&exph=397&expw=667&q=arctic+ice+in+the+1930&simid=608045444188864550&ck=C6610B879B565C06E73911092273E9FC&selectedIndex=0&qpvt=arctic+ice+in+the+1930&FORM=IRPRST&ajaxhist=0
ARCTIC ICE 1930
https://judithcurry.com/2013/04/10/historic-variations-in-arctic-sea-ice-part-ii-1920-1950/
Ah.
Some more accurate info.
J.-P. D.
Dangerous Cold for Week Ahead Over Much of Country
https://www.wunderground.com/video/top-stories/dangerous-cold-for-week-ahead-over-much-of-country
The Great Lakes are not frozen and there will be a ‘lake effect’ for this week. After a week, there will be more ice on the lakes.
Forecast for the US for February 15th.
https://i.ibb.co/4tfNVVJ/Screenshot-2.png
Salvatore Del Prete
Arctic Summer sea ice extent data for the last 1450 years from Kinnard et al 2011.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10581
https://static.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Kinnard_2011_sea_ice_med.jpg
I don’t see the low ice extent periods you claim.
I just sent two separate articles showing that to be the case.
Actually you didnt. You linked to two known propaganda sites.
Do you have anything with provenance?
Actually I did.
EM,
The authors of the Nature article seem to be unaware that sea ice is frozen sea water. They seem about as clueless as the scientists who claimed that melting sea ice could raise sea levels, or that the ocean depths are heated by the sun.
Maybe you could link to somebody who actually knows what they are talking about, when you appeal to authority.
Co2islife
“UAh Data doesnt show an uptrend in temperatures: ”
That turns out not to be the case.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1978/to:2021/every/plot/uah6/from:1978/to:2021/every/trend
ET says: Co2islife
UAh Data doesnt show an uptrend in temperatures:
That turns out not to be the case.
It does not show an uptrend, as I explained above:
1) It shows variability, not a trend
2) It starts during the Coming Ice Age Era of 1979
3) Current temperatures are not 2 or 3 standard deviations above the mean
4) 1980 had the same temperature as 2008, if CO2 traps heat, then it trapped no heat between those two dates
5) There is no continual series of higher highs and higher lows, only volitility
6) Current temperatures are below the level of 1986, and headed south
7) LWIR and radiation remove energy from the atmosphere in a matter of seconds, in other words, if you don’t have continually increasing temperatures, CO2 isn’t “trapping” any heat for an extended period of time
8) El Ninos clearly are causing the spikes in temperatures, not CO2
9) CO2 and LWIR won’t warm the oceans
10) Oceans control the atmospheric temperature
11) The R-Squared of a regression on that data would be close to 0.00
CO2isLife said: It does not show an uptrend
The UAH trend is +0.1374C/decade +/- 0.006 with an R^2 of 0.46.
1) It shows variability, not a trend
It shows both. The standard deviation is 0.25 and the trend is +0.1374C/decade.
2) It starts during the Coming Ice Age Era of 1979
Peterson 2008: https://tinyurl.com/edkagni8
3) Current temperatures are not 2 or 3 standard deviations above the mean
Kaufmann 2020: https://tinyurl.com/5ji0otpn
4) 1980 had the same temperature as 2008, if CO2 traps heat, then it trapped no heat between those two dates
The annual mean for 1980 was -0.228C vs 2008 of -0.160. However, keep in mind that this is only for the atmosphere at around 700mb. The ocean took up 199 ZJ during this period. That comes out to an average uptake of +0.44 W/m^2 and that doesn’t include the land and cryosphere uptake.
5) There is no continual series of higher highs and higher lows, only volitility
Using the 13m average you can clearly see a sequence of higher highs and higher lows.
6) Current temperatures are below the level of 1986, and headed south
The 13m average in 1986/7 was -0.33 vs 2020/7 of 0.34.
7) LWIR and radiation remove energy from the atmosphere in a matter of seconds, in other words, if you don’t have continually increasing temperatures, CO2 isn’t “trapping” any heat for an extended period of time
There is a very steady increase in heat in the whole climate system. Using just the ocean as a proxy for the thermal mass of the climate system (a good approximation since it is 90%) is 8.5 ZJ/year +/- 0.1 (or 0.527 W/m^2 +/- 0.004). That also has an R^2 of 0.96 which tells us that it is very steady and continuous uptake.
8) El Ninos clearly are causing the spikes in temperatures, not CO2
Yes they do. Likewise La Ninas clearly are causing sharp drops in temperature as well. Note however that ENSO is cyclic with a net zero effect over long periods. It also does not create heat. It just moves around.
9) CO2 and LWIR won’t warm the oceans
Wong 2018: https://tinyurl.com/5blefomb
10) Oceans control the atmospheric temperature
There are certainly a contributing factor. It’s actually one of the main reason why atmospheric temperatures are increasing on a global scale and over long periods of time. As the ocean takes up heat and warms so to must the atmosphere warm as well.
11) The R-Squared of a regression on that data would be close to 0.00
The UAH trend has an R^2 of 0.46.
The OHC trend has an R^2 of 0.96.
Dear Dr. Spencer and all fellow forum members:
I would like to raise some reflections:
There is no doubt that there have been and are many people honestly investigating the phenomena concerning climate change.
It also seems to me undoubted that today in our societies the IPCC models are decisive when predicting the future climate …
I read the brochure on Predictor Models of Climate that Dr. Spencer uploaded in January, which talks about how at one point Saltzman sought to decouple weather predictions on extreme scales of time and space from weather predictions to short term
and that this is done through the property called “closure” used in the field of quantum mechanics with the standard model of particles …
The following article beautifully explains this property for the standard model:
https://www.investigacionyciencia.es/noticias/el-abracadabra-matemtico-que-salv-a-la-fsica-de-partulares-19085
Quantum mechanics has garnered 14 Nobel Prizes between 1932 and 1999, the result of tremendous experimental and predictive success.
I started searching for Barry Saltzman and came across a lengthy article describing his ambitious scientific career in some detail:
https://www.encyclopedia.com/science/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/saltzman-barry
Of course, Saltzman seems to be the father and designer of the current IPCC computer model climate prediction system …
However, neither the studies and investigations of Barry Saltzman, nor of any other scientist that is his successor or related to climate change, have had to be sufficiently successful in their experimental approaches, to obtain a Nobel Prize in physics or chemistry, since the 1960s. until now.
And it seems that the will on the part of the Nobel Foundation is not lacking …, since they have awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to the IPCC in 2007
and the Nobel Prize in economics in 2018 to William Nordhaus for the “development of an economic model on the impact of climate change”
So:
Is the parallelism between the field of weather and quantum mechanics in terms of closure real?
Isn’t the faith placed in the predictions of the IPCC climate models by governments and institutions inconsistent?
“Isn’t the faith placed in the predictions of the IPCC climate models by governments and institutions inconsistent?”
IPCC doesn’t make predictions, it makes projections.
Projections have various uses, but a use could said to be political/economical or practical value for the IPCC institution.
A chart for non-condensing greenhouse gases would be meaningful if water vapor (WV) increase was actually a result of only temperature increase (feedback). It is not.
Water vapor is driven into the atmosphere by its vapor pressure. Vapor pressure depends only on the temperature of the liquid water. Data showing vapor pressure vs temperature of the liquid water is widely available. Evaporation is slowed by the partial pressure of WV in the atmosphere and when the partial pressure gets to be as high as the vapor pressure, net evaporation stops.
The figure at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_2m02r30FmvtgSnOEZunFRpUJwTUFU_V/view?usp=sharing shows the measured WV (Total Precipitable Water (TPW) measured globally by NASA/RSS using satellite instruments) and what the WV would be if calculated only on the basis of temperature of the liquid water. The graph shows that the trend for the measured WV is greater than the trend for WV calculated from temperature increase (feedback). Because the partial pressure of WV in the atmosphere is ignored, the calculated temperature increase is somewhat higher than it would be.
This demonstrates that increasing WV is NOT a result of increasing non-condensing greenhouse gases. All of the average global temperature increase attributable to human activity is from increasing WV. Most (about 90%) of the WV increase attributed to humanity is from increased irrigation. Increasing CO2 does not now, never has, and never will have a significant effect on climate.
The temperature increase from WV increase is self-limiting. More WV indicates an increase of the rate of transport of energy from the surface to an elevation where the energy can be radiated to space and also will result in increased cloud cover which reflects more solar radiation energy away and provides more area for broad-spectrum radiation to space. Lower cloud altitude and thus warmer temperature also increases broad band radiation from clouds to space. Therefore, the average global temperature increase is also self-limiting.
Pangburn
” More WV indicates an increase of the rate of transport of energy from the surface to an elevation where the energy can be radiated to space… ”
Sorry, this is simply wrong.
Exactly the inverse is the case: the less WV you have in the air
– the more can be directly radiated to space
and above all
– the most efficient the energy output to space will be, because the radiation occurs at an altitude giving a higher temperature than at an altitude of 5 km.
But your meaning perfectly fits into the idea propagated by some top experts in this blog, who simply state that the more CO2 you have in the atmosphere, the more is radiated to space.
Incredible, but true.
J.-P. D.
Bin,
No, its not wrong. You understand it too quickly. It means that the hydrologic cycle, which pumps latent heat up from the surface, is increased. Of course the added WV impedes the flow of radiant heat up to where the energy can be radiated to space (like you said). More WV means clouds form at lower altitude where it is warmer. Clouds radiate essentially full spectrum so a large part of the radiation from clouds is at wavelengths that can go through the atmospheric window out to space. The net result is that temperature increase from increasing WV is self limiting. A simple observation corroborates this. We and all other life are here as a result of billions of years of planet temperature actually not varying much.
“A simple observation corroborates this. We and all other life are here as a result of billions of years of planet temperature actually not varying much.”
I would say in terms of a billion years, Earth temperature has varied a lot.
But I think of earth temperature as the average temperature of ocean and variation in Earth’s ocean temperature has been about from 1 to over 20 C.
But in icebox climate within last few tens of million years, it been about 1 to 6 to 7 C. And cold ocean is presently about 3.5 C.
And a change of 1 C in terms warming or cooling makes a big difference in Earth’s air temperature. Or ours is presently about 15 and would change to about 10 to 20 C air temperature with minus or plus ocean temperature of 1 K.
But also the ocean surface temperature is limited to about 30 C to ice temperature {and surface of ice is like the land surface which does not have particular lower temperature limit, but one could say somewhere around minus 90 C. And one can’t have thick uniform global cloud cover, nor global cloudless skies.
It seems once ocean gets much warmer than average temperature of 5 to 10 C, it doesn’t have much amplification of global air temperature. But ocean which which 20 C or more is very warm world- or global tropical conditions, though tropical climate in polar regions will colder then our present tropics- there is just a lot less sunlight. But world without it close to freezing at sea level is much warmer world, then the Ice Age we have been living in for millions of years.
Gba,
I don’t disagree. What you are calling “varied a lot” is IMO about the same as what I called “not varying much” My only point being there was always an acceptable temperature someplace for life as we know it to have evolved.
barry…”CO2isLife made demonstrably false claims. Your pitiful attempt to spin that is quite transparent”.
Problem is Barry, you can’t supply a coherent argument to rebut CO2isLife. In the past, when I have supplied proof to rebut a comment you have made, you move the goalposts rather than admit you are wrong.
Example 1…I gave you a link to NOAA’s admission they had slashed global surface stations from 6000 to less than 1500. You replied, inferring that’s not what they meant. Binny replied that the article was old, having been printed in 2015.
Example 2…when I linked you to an admission from the IPCC that the 15 year period from 1998 – 2012 showed insignificant warming, calling it a warming hiatus, you argued that 15 years was not long enough to be considered significant.
Good grief, 15 years of a flat trend is an eternity in the range from which it was taken considering temps were supposed to increase annually due to the alleged CO2 warming.
Robertson the eternal liar and cheating SOB
1. ” Example 1 I gave you a link to NOAA’s admission they had slashed global surface stations from 6000 to less than 1500. You replied, inferring that’s not what they meant. ”
Yes you liar, barry was right.
YOU were the one who misrepresented NOAA’s page during years and years.
Because you kept silent the fact that
– all stations NOAA gave up were stations for which there was no possibility for electronic communication;
– at the same time, NOAA was acquiring THOUSANDS of new stations.
2. “Binny replied that the article was old, having been printed in 2015. ”
No you liar. YOU were telling it was printed in 2015.
I told that according to the Wayback machine, the NOAA page was already present in… 2010.
3. And YOU Robertson are the liar who pretends that the currently 40,000 GHCN daily stations (35,000 3 years ago) either do not exist, or are never used.
Your are of such incredible stupidity that you write on this blog that NOAA uses only ONE station in the Canadian Arctic!
I can’t recall anybody being so dumb, and lying so brazen as you do.
And you are not even able to correctly read Newton’s original text!
J.-P. D.
Gordon,
“Example 1… I gave you a link to NOAA’s admission they had slashed global surface stations from 6000 to less than 1500. You replied, inferring thats not what they meant.”
There was no inferring. The text is very clear:
“Q. Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe from 6,000 to less than 1,500?
The physical number of weather stations has shrunk as modern technology improved and some of the older outposts were no longer accessible in real time.
However, over time, the data record for surface temperatures has actually grown, thanks to the digitization of historical books and logs, as well as international data contributions.”
https://web.archive.org/web/20100826063929/http://www.noaa.gov:80/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
Where in that does it say that stations were deliberately removed, deleted, or slashed by NOAA?
None of the language in this page you cite says that NOAA deliberately deleted weather stations from their list?
nope, it doesn’t say what you say it does.
Furthermore, I have shown you (nearly 20 times, I’d guess) the paper that explains why there are more stations in the mid 80s than more recently.
https://tinyurl.com/gp6z3qp
It explains that 1200 stations updated to NOAA in real-time, while many other station data were collected and hand digitisaed from old logs to add to the historical record.
Stations weren’t slashed. They were added retropspectively, and because they were not part of the regularly updating 1200 stations, that was that. Many of those old stations no longer operate, so it’s not even possible to seek permission to get regular updates from them.
You’ve been shown this multiple times.
You continue to lie.
One thing which is apparent you have those that believe in AGW theory and those that don’t and we will continue to agree to disagree forever!
Wrong ! (again)
AGW theory is proving correct as each month goes by.
You and your dinosaur fellow travellers are on the wrong side of history (again).
Of course you will say it is correct because the temperature trend has been up for the past 50 so odd years.
The trend should have ben up due to solar up to the year 2005 which would be the inflection point. Now 2021 is just 16 years beyond that point and lag times are involved. I don’t know what the lag times are, so it is wait and see.
Each year that goes by with a further temperature increase looms bad for the solar/climate connection but I think not quite enough time has gone by to give in.
As far as being on the wrong side of history aside from the climate I have just about no common ground with conservative positions especially when it comes to the virus and Trump.
adelaida…”Quantum mechanics has garnered 14 Nobel Prizes between 1932 and 1999, the result of tremendous experimental and predictive success”.
Nobel prizes have been awarded and the work for which they were awarded was later proved to be wrong. Quantum mechanics theory took a wrong turn circa 1930 when Niels Bohr decided to explore the less scientific aspects, the aspects that could not be proved and have never been proved, like action at a distance.
At the time, both Schroding.er, who wrote out the equations explaining Bohr’s theory of 1913, and Einstein, would have nothing to do with Bohr’s new speculations circa 1930.
Some important theories have developed from quantum theory, like the theoretical explanation of the actions of electrons in electronics and chemistry, but none of the more esoteric theory have been proved. The idea of quantum computing has gone nowhere.
“Is the parallelism between the field of weather and quantum mechanics in terms of closure real?”
Eben posted a link to an interesting article the other days by a Canadian mathematician, Christopher Essex, who specializes in the question you are asking. Essex, an expert in models and the math underlying them, claimed that no solutions for the Navier-Stokes equations underlying climate models have been found to explain a complex system like the atmosphere/surface interface. The equations adress only radiation and offer a Mickey Mouse coverag.e of surface conduction and convection.
G.erlich and Tscheuschner, experts in thermodynamics, with G.erlich being an expert in the related math, claimed there is no computer on the planet with sufficient power to model the equations, even if solutions could be found. Climate models g.et around that by using primitive solutions that are totally g.eneralized. They also introduce concepts like positive feedback and a warming factor for CO2 that have never been established in physics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19q1i-wAUpY&feature=youtu.be
If that link does not work, try:
https://youtu.be/19q1i-wAUpY
Thanks to Eben.
Here’s an hour long audio pod-cast featuring Christopher Essex:
https://industrialprogress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/PH-120-Chris-Essex.mp3
In this pod-cast he claims there is no rigourous definition of climate. Near where I live in Vancouver, BC, the weather can be different within a few miles due to altitude alone. Since climate is loosely claimed to be the averag.e of weather, there is simply no way to pin climate down to a universal model such as global climate. Therefore, climate models are nothing more than expensive toys.
Christopher Essex ! ha ha ha.
Is that all you have ?
Bottom of the barrel on my opinion.
MJ, please dont mock.
Christopher Essex is the only mathematician they have in Canada.
Dr Essex doesn’t know a lot of things, or he is deliberately lying.
He doesn’t understand what the statement “long term prediction of future climate states is not possible” means.
And he should.
Anomalies, Temperatures, model are other things he is rather light on.
I am still listening, but we do have climate, our climate is an Icehouse climate.
Though say something like California could change it’s climate within the icehouse global climate. It hasn’t changed it’s climate recently, but it could become more tropical, or wetter mediterranean climate or have more desert condition, much drier mediterranean climate. And could other changes, it could rain more uniformly, or all rain occurs in couple months, etc. But simply having one year be drier or wetter, is not climate change, it’s variation of a climate- or just the randomness of weather.
But since we in global icehouse climate there is predictably aspect in regards to all many climates on Earth. And generally globally one has more deserts in icehouse climate.
He saying no heat.
But ocean temperature is heat.
He might right that no heat in sense the ocean is cold.
Anyways everyone agree that at least recently, 90% of global warming is heating {raising temperature of ocean- and some [wrongly claim} it’s been around .2 C in last few decades}.
Or if ocean warms by 1 C, the heat added is equal 1000 K added to atmosphere. Or ocean cooled 1 C, it’s equal to minus 1000 K to atmosphere. Or that just expresses the amount heat involved, or ocean has a lot specific heat and is massive and as compared the entire atmosphere, the atmosphere require 1/1000th of the heat/energy to warm or cool by 1 C.
Ok, finished it. It was pretty good.
Near end of it:
Re: inflation analogy and indexes = global average temperature
What I say is most predictive is entire ocean temperature and it takes a long time to change it.
Global warming has been insignificant {entire ocean has warmed a small amount within last couple of centuries} and ocean could warm in future, but not within decades, more like centuries. And if it warms it will be good, just last couple centuries of warming has been good.
Or our cold ocean is why we in Icehouse climate and ocean could warm and be warm as interglacial in past have been or ocean might warm as much has it has in past interglacial period. But warmest in been in past interglacials would require at least 1000 years.
Bindidon
‘The predicted snowstorm is currently sweeping across a wide strip of the northern center of the country on Sunday morning. From the Münsterland to Hanover to the Harz Mountains, over 15 centimeters of fresh snow has already come together overnight. With a stormy east wind with gusts of up to 80 kilometers per hour, there are already strong snow drifts.’
https://www.wetteronline.de/wetterticker/2c4c6c02-0115-4ba0-8947-d7bf336e4132
ren
Yeah. It’ snowing a bit now since a few hours here, say 2 cm.
‘This includes London, which is forecast to pick up as much as 1-3 inches (3-8 cm) of snow. Should snow accumulate in London this weekend, it would be the second snowfall in two weeks for the U.K. capital. This storm could also produce the city’s biggest snowfall so far this winter.’
https://cms.accuweather.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/page-18.jpg?w=632
Gordon,
Thank you. You write very well and in general you are very polite, which is something that is really appreciated!
But your opinions on quantum mechanics and relativity, …. They take away your credibility!
The standard model as well as Einstein’s relativity are being used with enormous experimental and predictive success in day-to-day particle physics and astrophysics (which does not mean that they have solved everything since a theory has not yet been achieved unified physics ..)
An experimental example:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbasees/Relativ/muon.html
The article on renormalization that I submitted in my previous post is very interesting.
GR .. “polite”….”credibility” …..!
Oxymorons.
Adelaida
You seem to have a rather naive view on some people.
Because naming a guy like Robertson ‘polite’: that is a bit hard.
Apart from the fact that, like his brothers-in-denial nicknamed ClintR, Swenson etc, he names everybody an idiot who disagrees with him, he really managed to name Andrew Motte, one of the great translators of Newton’s Principia Scientifica (together with the French mathematician Gabrielle Emilie du Chatelet), “a cheating SOB”.
This is not only impolite: it is really disgusting, and is also the reason why I myself do name him so since then.
As for his opinion on Einstein and his work, or viruses and some similar things … so what.
J.-P. D.
JD, I don’t mind being grouped with Gordon and Swenson. They both seem unaffected by the constant slurs from your type. They seem to be quite secure, and able to think for themselves.
But, you continue to try to hide the fact that you have been tested positive for idiot. That is NOT “name-calling”. You deny reality. Worse yet, you attempt to pervert reality. That makes you an idiot.
Of course, in your case, there may be some evidence of inherited DNA contributing to your problems….
“They seem to be quite secure, and able to think for themselves.”
Yes, we have them securely locked up each night.
As for thinking – yes, we have detected some neurological activity. Not much mind you.
Will there be a positive anomaly in 48 states in February?
https://i.ibb.co/T17jmHJ/Screenshot-3.png
https://i.ibb.co/1vwKc7j/gfs-T2ma-us-31.png
It seems that in Europe the temperature anomaly in February will not be positive.
https://i.ibb.co/FBtWrn7/gfs-T2ma-eu-61.png
Will there be a positive temperature anomaly in the Arctic in February?
https://i.ibb.co/HNQ0SPt/ecmwf-mslpa-nhem-11.png
In Australia, the temperature anomaly will remain negative in February.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino4.png
That’s not in Australia. Those are sea surface temperatures for the NINO4 region in the Pacific Ocean.
Thanks for a good joke!
Over 15% of stations show no defined uptrend in temperatures and counting.
Steveston (49.1333N, 123.1833W) ID:CA001107710
Maiduguri (11.8500N, 13.0830E) ID:NIM00065082
Zanzibar (6.222S, 39.2250E) ID:TZM00063870
Laghouat (33.7997N, 2.8900E) ID:AGE00147719
Luqa (35.8500N, 14.4831E) ID:MT000016597
Ponta Delgada (37.7410N, 25.698W) ID:POM00008512
Wauseon Wtp (41.5183N, 84.1453W) ID:USC00338822
Valentia Observatory (51.9394N, 10.2219W) ID:EI000003953
Dombaas (62.0830N, 9.1170E) ID:NOM00001233
Okecie (52.1660N, 20.9670E) ID:PLM00012375
Vilnius (54.6331N, 25.1000E) ID:LH000026730
Vardo (70.3670N, 31.1000E) ID:NO000098550
Port Blair (11.6670N, 92.7170E) ID:IN099999901
Nagpur Sonegaon (21.1000N, 79.0500E) ID:IN012141800
Indore (22.7170N, 75.8000E) ID:IN011170400
Enisejsk (58.4500N, 92.1500E) ID:RSM00029263
Vladivostok (43.8000N, 131.9331E) ID:RSM00031960
Nikolaevsk Na Amure (53.1500N, 140.7164E) ID:RSM00031369
Nemuro (43.3330N, 145.5830E) ID:JA000047420
York (31.8997S, 116.7650E) ID:ASN00010311
Albany (35.0289S, 117.8808E) ID:ASN00009500
Adelaide West Terrace (34.9254S, 138.5869E) ID:ASN00023000
Yamba Pilot Station (29.4333S, 153.3633E) ID:ASN00058012
Wilsons Promontory Lighthouse (39.1297S, 146.4244E) ID:ASN00085096
Mount Gambier Post Office (37.8333S, 140.7833E) ID:ASN00026020
Cape Otway Lighthouse (38.8556S, 143.5128E) ID:ASN00090015
Lencois (12.567S, 41.383W) ID:BR047571250
Eagle (64.7856N, 141.2036W) ID:USC00502607
Orland (39.7458N, 122.1997W) ID:USC00046506
Bahia Blanca Aero (38.733S, 62.167W) ID:AR000877500
Punta Arenas (53.0S, 70.967W) ID:CI000085934
Brazzaville (4.25S, 15.2500E) ID:CF000004450
Durban Intl (29.97S, 30.9510E) ID:SFM00068588
Port Elizabeth Intl (33.985S, 25.6170E) ID:SFM00068842
Sandakan (5.9000N, 118.0670E) ID:MY000096491
Aparri (18.3670N, 121.6330E) ID:RP000098232
Darwin Airport (12.4239S, 130.8925E) ID:ASN00014015
Palmerville (16.0008S, 144.0758E) ID:ASN00028004
Coonabarabran Namoi Street (31.2712S, 149.2714E) ID:ASN00064008
Newcastle Nobbys Signal Stati (32.9185S, 151.7985E) ID:ASN00061055
Moruya Heads Pilot Station (35.9093S, 150.1532E) ID:ASN00069018
Omeo (37.1017S, 147.6008E) ID:ASN00083090
Gabo Island Lighthouse (37.5679S, 149.9158E) ID:ASN00084016
Echucaaerodrome (36.1647S, 144.7642E) ID:ASN00080015
Maryborough (37.056S, 143.7320E) ID:ASN00088043
Longerenong (36.6722S, 142.2991E) ID:ASN00079028
Christchurch Intl (43.489S, 172.5320E) ID:NZM00093780
Hokitika Aerodrome (42.717S, 170.9830E) ID:NZ000936150
Auckland Aero Aws (37.0S, 174.8000E) ID:NZM00093110
St Paul Island Ap (57.1553N, 170.2222W) ID:USW00025713
Nome Muni Ap (64.5111N, 165.44W) ID:USW00026617
Kodiak Ap (57.7511N, 152.4856W) ID:USW00025501
Dawson A (64.0500N, 139.1333W) ID:CA002100402
Atlin (59.5667N, 133.7W) ID:CA001200560
Juneau Intl Ap (58.3567N, 134.5639W) ID:USW00025309
Skagway (59.4547N, 135.3136W) ID:USC00508525
Hay River A (60.8333N, 115.7833W) ID:CA002202400
Prince Albert A (53.2167N, 105.6667W) ID:CA004056240
Kamloops A (50.7000N, 120.45W) ID:CA001163780
Banff (51.1833N, 115.5667W) ID:CA003050520
Mina (38.3844N, 118.1056W) ID:USC00265168
Merced Muni Ap (37.2847N, 120.5128W) ID:USW00023257
So Entr Yosemite Np (37.5122N, 119.6331W) ID:USC00048380
Santa Maria (34.9500N, 120.4333W) ID:USC00047940
Maricopa (35.0833N, 119.3833W) ID:USC00045338
Ojai (34.4478N, 119.2275W) ID:USC00046399
Death Valley (36.4622N, 116.8669W) ID:USC00042319
Rio Grande City (26.3769N, 98.8117W) ID:USC00417622
Beeville 5 Ne (28.4575N, 97.7061W) ID:USC00410639
Carlsbad (32.3478N, 104.2225W) ID:USC00291469
Burnet (30.7586N, 98.2339W) ID:USC00411250
Mtn Park (32.9539N, 105.8225W) ID:USC00295960
Williams (35.2414N, 112.1928W) ID:USC00029359
Needles Ap (34.7675N, 114.6189W) ID:USW00023179
Loa (38.4058N, 111.6433W) ID:USC00425148
Priest River Exp Stn (48.3511N, 116.8353W) ID:USC00107386
Republic (48.6469N, 118.7314W) ID:USC00456974
Rangely 1E (40.0892N, 108.7722W) ID:USC00056832
Lovelock (40.1906N, 118.4767W) ID:USC00264698
Pendleton (45.6906N, 118.8528W) ID:USW00024155
Nevada City (39.2467N, 121.0008W) ID:USC00046136
Culbertson (48.1503N, 104.5089W) ID:USC00242122
Indian Head Cda (50.5500N, 103.65W) ID:CA004013480
Sherman (33.7033N, 96.6419W) ID:USC00418274
Ballinger 2 Nw (31.7414N, 99.9764W) ID:USC00410493
Ocala (29.1639N, 82.0778W) ID:USC00086414
Akron 4 E (40.1550N, 103.1417W) ID:USC00050109
Yates Ctr (37.8786N, 95.7292W) ID:USC00149080
Alfred (42.2497N, 77.7583W) ID:USC00300085
Georgetown (6.8000N, 58.15W) ID:GYM00081001
Casa Blancala Habana (23.1670N, 82.35W) ID:CUM00078325
Ft Kent (47.2386N, 68.6136W) ID:USC00172878
Moosonee (51.2833N, 80.6W) ID:CA006075420
Jackman (45.6275N, 70.2583W) ID:USC00174086
Columbia Rgnl Ap (38.8169N, 92.2183W) ID:USW00003945
Srinagar (34.0830N, 74.8330E) ID:IN008010200
Olekminsk (60.4000N, 120.4167E) ID:RSM00024944
Turkestan (43.2700N, 68.2200E) ID:KZ000038198
Shimla (31.1000N, 77.1670E) ID:IN007101600
Silvio Pettirossi Intl (25.24S, 57.519W) ID:PAM00086218
El Golea (30.5667N, 2.8667E) ID:AG000060590
Salamanca Aeropuerto (40.9592N, 5.4981W) ID:SP000008202
Kahler Asten Wst (51.1817N, 8.4900E) ID:GME00111457
Coloso (18.3808N, 67.1569W) ID:RQC00662801
Nassau Airport New (25.0500N, 77.467W) ID:BF000078073
Tarpon Spgs Sewage Pl (28.1522N, 82.7539W) ID:USC00088824
Cape Hatteras Ap (35.2325N, 75.6219W) ID:USW00093729
Hamburg (40.5511N, 75.9914W) ID:USC00363632
Charlottetown A (46.2833N, 63.1167W) ID:CA008300301
Saint Johnsbury (44.4200N, 72.0194W) ID:USC00437054
Lake Placid 2 S (44.2489N, 73.985W) ID:USC00304555
Elmira (42.0997N, 76.8358W) ID:USC00302610
Franklin (41.4003N, 79.8306W) ID:USC00363028
Sparta (43.9364N, 90.8164W) ID:USC00477997
La Harpe (40.5839N, 90.9686W) ID:USC00114823
Ashley (46.0406N, 99.3742W) ID:USC00320382
Tooele (40.5353N, 112.3217W) ID:USC00428771
Lander Hunt Fld Ap (42.8153N, 108.7261W) ID:USW00024021
Green River (41.5167N, 109.4703W) ID:USC00484065
Kennebec (43.9072N, 99.8628W) ID:USC00394516
Cooperstown (42.7167N, 74.9267W) ID:USC00301752
Marshall (39.1342N, 93.2225W) ID:USW00013991
Imperial (40.5208N, 101.655W) ID:USC00254110
Milan 1 Nw (45.1219N, 95.9269W) ID:USC00215400
Grundy Ctr (42.3647N, 92.7594W) ID:USC00133487
Laramie Rgnl Ap (41.3119N, 105.6747W) ID:USW00024022
Curtis 3Nne (40.6742N, 100.4936W) ID:USC00252100
Laketown (41.8250N, 111.3208W) ID:USC00424856
Springview (42.8222N, 99.7467W) ID:USC00258090
Culbertson (40.2333N, 100.8292W) ID:USC00252065
Deseret (39.2872N, 112.6519W) ID:USC00422101
Lamoni (40.6233N, 93.9508W) ID:USC00134585
Vestmannaeyjar (63.4000N, 20.2831W) ID:IC000004048
Akureyri (65.6800N, 18.0794W) ID:IC000004063
Maliye Karmakuly (72.3794N, 52.7300E) ID:RSM00020744
Torshavn (62.0170N, 6.767W) ID:DAM00006011
Oestersund (63.1831N, 14.4831E) ID:SWE00100026
Karlstad (59.3500N, 13.4667E) ID:SW000024180
Linkoeping (58.4000N, 15.5331E) ID:SW000008525
Torungen Fyr (58.3831N, 8.7917E) ID:NO000001465
Oksoey Fyr (58.0667N, 8.0506E) ID:NOE00105483
Brockport (43.2000N, 77.9333W) ID:USC00300937
Pana (39.3686N, 89.0867W) ID:USC00116579
Susanville 2Sw (40.4167N, 120.6631W) ID:USC00048702
Choteau (47.8206N, 112.1919W) ID:USC00241737
North Platte Rgnl Ap (41.1214N, 100.6694W) ID:USW00024023
Billings Wtp (45.7717N, 108.4811W) ID:USC00240802
White Hall 1 E (39.4411N, 90.3789W) ID:USC00119241
Helena Montana (46.7186N, 112.0017W) ID:USR0000MHEL
Miles City F Wiley Fld (46.4267N, 105.8825W) ID:USW00024037
Ipswich (45.4478N, 99.0383W) ID:USC00394206
Wilbur (47.7681N, 118.7239W) ID:USC00459238
Wamsutter (41.6717N, 107.9786W) ID:USC00489459
Elko Rgnl Ap (40.8289N, 115.7886W) ID:USW00024121
Cascade Locks (45.6778N, 121.8736W) ID:USC00351407
Canon City (38.4600N, 105.2256W) ID:USC00051294
Missoula Intl Ap (46.9208N, 114.0925W) ID:USW00024153
Pipestone (44.0139N, 96.3258W) ID:USC00216565
Ketchum Rs (43.6842N, 114.3603W) ID:USC00104845
Ely Yelland Fld Ap (39.2953N, 114.8467W) ID:USW00023154
Faulkton 1 Nw (45.0364N, 99.1342W) ID:USC00392927
Albia 3 Nne (41.0656N, 92.7867W) ID:USC00130112
Medford (45.1308N, 90.3439W) ID:USC00475255
Minonk (40.9125N, 89.0339W) ID:USC00115712
Chicago Midway Ap (41.7861N, 87.7522W) ID:USW00014819
Crawfordsville 6 Se (40.0028N, 86.8011W) ID:USC00121873
Clarinda (40.7244N, 95.0192W) ID:USC00131533
Melilla (35.2778N, 2.9553W) ID:SP000060338
Dublin Phoenix Park (53.3639N, 6.3192W) ID:EI000003969
Hanty Mansijsk (61.0167N, 69.1167E) ID:RSM00023933
Biser (58.5167N, 58.8500E) ID:RSM00028138
Gyzylarbat (38.9800N, 56.2800E) ID:TX000038763
Lahore City (31.5500N, 74.3330E) ID:PK000041640
Hyderabad Airport (25.3830N, 68.4170E) ID:PKM00041764
Mukteswar Kumaon (29.4667N, 79.6500E) ID:IN023420800
Again…starting at the bottom of your list…Mukteswar Kumaon.
From 1897-2020 the trend is +0.120C/decade +/- 0.012
Not that it matters, but the R^2 on that one is 0.47 which means that station’s temperature trajectory was pretty straight with a smaller than usual variability and deviation from the trendline.
And this was the very first station in your list that I checked.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=IN023420800&ds=14&dt=1
bdgwx, once again, what is the relationnship we are trying to establish? CO2 slowly increases W/M^2 over time, and those whole show a continued increase over time. Not to identify spikes in temperatures, we are trying to identify trends. CO2 is claimed to “trap” heat, that means that if a temperature is the same or lower than a previous time period, CO2 did not “trap” any heat. Here is the link to the site you referenced.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=IN023420800&dt=1&ds=15
This does not represent an uptrend for these reasons:
1) The lowest level is in 1995
2) The current temperatures are within the range established between 1895 and 1995
3) Only after 2000 do temperatures jump outide the established range…and it immediately drops back into the previous range
4) 90% + of the temperatures fall within the range established between 1895 and 1995
5) If you do your regression between 1895 and 1995, the slope will be negative (-), only when you included the outliers that occur after 1995 does the temperature increase
6) CO2 can’t cause the sudden bump in temperatures post 1995, if they can, please explain why temperatures only increase post-1995 if CO2 is the cause? Why was there no warming between 1985 and 1995?
Your own data shows that the R-Squared in 0.47, which is very low for science standards anyway, but to make my point, I removed the data post 1995, and this is exactly what you get: 0.00, literally 0.00, and that is copied exactly from my Excel Spreadsheet.
Using the Slope function you get 0.000182911, in other words, 0.00, there in no relationship, between 1895 and 1995.
100% of your case requires data between 1995 and 2020, data which by the end of the period is back into the normal range. In other words you rely on data outliers to make your case. That is junk science.
“CO2 is claimed to “trap” heat, that means that if a temperature is the same or lower than a previous time period, CO2 did not “trap” any heat.”
It is not a claim. Added ppm CO2 gas at room temperature trapped (a layman’s term) some heat in Prof. Tyndall’s apparatus (reported in 1861 about 5 degrees in temperature terms) until he closed the lab for the night & let the heat escape. Others have also shown CO2isLife how to trap some heat. In the instrumental and satellite period, some heat has been observed constantly trapped near Earth’s surface (about 33K in temperature terms).
Apparently CO2isLife “will probably share the astonishment with which I witnessed the foregoing effects” – Prof. Tyndall 1861 who then related his result to Earth’s atmosphere in general. See also for more observational history:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160932716300308
Even Dr. Spencer has trapped some heat in temperature terms from added DWIR of icy cirrus clouds in a small container of outdoor ambient water at night time!.
…explain why temperatures only increase post-1995 if CO2 is the cause?”
CO2 is not the ONLY cause of global median temperature change in that period, there are at least 8 more causes reasonably well observed & tracked. In addition to those, naturally occurring ocean temperature cycles add more temperature change to the mix.
The black line in Dr. Spencer’s top post just moved up a change amount consistent with added PPM CO2 between the two periods. The same consistency with added CO2 ppm as was observed as happened to the black line between 1938 and 1993. The blue and red lines represent weather changes in shorter time frames.
Apparently CO2isLife “will probably share the astonishment with which I witnessed the foregoing effects” – Prof. Tyndall 1861 who then related his result to Earth’s atmosphere in general. See also for more observational history:
No one denies the GHG Effect. The GHG Effect for CO2 however is limited largely to 0.00 PPM to 300 PPM, afterwards is has very very little to contribute. The GHG Efffect gets saturated way before we reached 300 PPM.
Simply look at the marginal impact of CO2 on the W/M^2, it shows a log decay.
A single cloudy day can negate months if not years of W/M^2 attributed to CO2, and a single El Nino can wipe out years if not decades of W/M^2 attributed to CO2, and lastly, CO2 and 13 to 15 Micron LWIR won’t warm water.
CO2isLife said: The GHG Efffect gets saturated way before we reached 300 PPM.
No it doesn’t. See Myhre 1998 and make sure you read each of the citations in the reference list as well. https://tinyurl.com/1nby46ch
CO2isLife said: Simply look at the marginal impact of CO2 on the W/M^2, it shows a log decay.
From 280 to 410 it is 5.35 * ln(410/280) = +2.0 W/m^2
From 410 to 560 it is 5.35 * ln(560/410) = +1.7 W/m^2
From 560 to 1120 it is 5.35 * ln(1120/560) = +3.7 W/m^2
CO2isLife said: CO2 and 13 to 15 Micron LWIR wont warm water.
Yes it does. Water so greedily takes LWIR of all wavelengths including 13-17 um that it is almost entirely taken up right on the skin. Refer to Wong 2018 for details regarding the microphysics of how LWIR warms the oceans. https://tinyurl.com/5blefomb
“a single El Nino can wipe out years if not decades of W/M^2 attributed to CO2”
El Nino is an ocean surface temperature change from water currents independent of CO2 IR opacity which remains & is not wiped out, at all. El Nino cycles near surface temperatures while atm. CO2 IR opacity is consistent with CO2 ppm observed monotonic in the measurement period.
Sure, all the non-CO2 temperature cycles/causes can synch up independently and cause the red/blue weather lines to go below the black climate line as shown & even in the near future while observationally the black climate line has consistently moved up in modern observational times.
Paleo climate analytical estimates though show black line probably CAN move down in certain lengthy periods from various causes/cycles.
Not to identify spikes in temperatures, we are trying to identify trends.
Agreed. And you use Excel’s LINEST function to do this.
CO2 is claimed to “trap” heat, that means that if a temperature is the same or lower than a previous time period, CO2 did not “trap” any heat.
Right. But the test for that is to measure ALL heat in the climate system. This includes the hydrosphere, cryosphere, atmosphere, and land. Your test of only the atmosphere at only 2 meters and only at one site is insufficient to measure this trapped heat. See Schuckmann 2020 https://tinyurl.com/34pjx4hj for a measurement of this trapped heat and estimates for how it is distributed through the various heat reservoirs in the climate system.
If you do your regression between 1895 and 1995, the slope will be negative (-), only when you included the outliers that occur after 1995 does the temperature increase
From 1897 to 1995 the trend is +0.106C/decade +/- 0.015 with an R^2 of 0.33. Note that I am using the adjusted data for these calculations because I want to know the unbiased trend. I’m not interested in knowing the trend that is biased by station moves, time of observation effects, urban effects, instrumentation changes, etc.
100% of your case requires data between 1995 and 2020, data which by the end of the period is back into the normal range. In other words you rely on data outliers to make your case.
On the contrary I’m feeding ALL of the data into Excel’s LINEST function.
Bindidon,
I think that in general we are or follow the forum to get to the truth about climate change fundamentally, and we also outline that search in other matters … And I hope we help each other without insulting each other! …
It really is that seen outside who insults another of the forum loses credibility!
Well, it seems that you lack arguments and reasoning to defend your thesis and it becomes exhausting to follow the comments. Also, insulting your opponent does not serve to convince him of anything but quite the opposite …
Even so, I am very interested in all the interventions and I follow the comments of the forum as much as I can.
Adelaida
” Also, insulting your opponent does not serve to convince him of anything but quite the opposite… ”
Sorry, but when you write that, it seems to me that you can’t have followed the insulting I have been here since years the target.
Where nobody insults me, there is no need for me to insult back.
And ABOVE ALL, Adelaida, I do not accept that dumb Ignoramusses feel free to insult historically relevant persons jsut because no moderation occurs on the blog.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon
You say:
“Their reconstruction was based on a proxy
And… what was that proxy? OMG. ”
The Conolly et al 2017 paper says:
“.. we develop a new estimate of Arctic sea ice extent trends for the period, 1901–2015. was constructed by individually re-calibrating sea ice data sources from the three Arctic regions (North American, Nordic and Siberian) using the corresponding surface air temperature trends for the pre-satellite era (1901–1978), ”
You claim that the DMI is a far better “proxy.”
DMI is covered in some depth including the dependent “Walsh” dataset and dependent Hadley data. DMI data is actually quite sparse (incl problems with Russian ice) but has certainly been used for the areas it covered!! It is incomplete! So how could it be a better substitute when their their work includes a lot of extra actual data.
The same applies to the Walsh dataset
They issue this caveat re satellite:
“However, because the Alekseev et al. (2016) reconstruction is essentially an inverse Arctic summer temperature index, it cannot be used for studying the relationship between Arctic sea ice extent and surface air temperatures outside the satellite era (as that would lead to circular logic).
For this reason, the satellite-derived estimates of total and regional sea ice extents are probably more consistent and reliable than those from the pre-satellite era, which were derived from spatially incomplete and intermittent observations. ”
Further snipits:
” As a result, for the pre-satellite era, the American-based Walsh group had very few observations for the Russian Arctic, and in their dataset most of the estimates for these regions were based on (often crude) extrapolations and inferences.
…and the Hadley Centre’s HadISST dataset (see Section 3.5), which is based on the Walsh dataset. Version 1 of the Walsh dataset was one of our main sources for pre-satellite ice extents,
… Up until 1953, the spring and summer estimates in the Walsh dataset are predominantly based on Arctic sea ice charts compiled by the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI)
So, in this paper, we will combine the Russian dataset with the western datasets, to provide a new pan-Arctic estimate for the pre-satellite era.
… we take an intermediate approach which preserves useful information provided by the pre-satellite era Arctic sea ice datasets, but also uses information from Arctic surface air temperature trends to reduce the problems arising from changes in data sources.
…..we used these relationships to convert our regional and seasonal temperature reconstructions into proxies for the corresponding sea ice extents. However, these sea ice extent proxies do not contain any of the information from the actual pre-satellite era sea ice observations. So, unlike Alekseev et al. (2016), we only used these proxies as an additional dataset for recalibrating the pre-satellite era datasets, or when direct observations are unavailable. ”
Perhaps you should read the paper in full. There is a lot more thought, coverage, inclusion and reliance on other references than you wish to make out. This is hardly a simple proxy reconstruction of the past as you suggested but a more comprehensive integration of all existing data which was not very complete. DMI is only one component and has its own limitations.
tonyM
1. I have read the paper.
2. You perfectly know what I mean, namely that if anybody outside of the ‘Skeptic’ corner had done the same job, you would have seen the reaction at WUWT.
That’s all, there was no need to write so many lines about it.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon
You say:
“You perfectly know what I mean..”
I only know what you stated not what you wish to assert that I “perfectly know.” You were critical of their re-calibration claiming:
“And… what was that proxy? OMG.
It was… the inverse of the Arctic temperature!”
You then doubled down by stating:
“A far better proxy would be the sequence of observations collected by DMI since 1900, …”
Had you clearly recalled the content of the Connolly paper you could never make such a silly claim for the DMI data had severe spatial and temporal limitations clearly discussed at length in the paper. I asked you to tell me why you thought you were right but you choose to ignore that question.
I am aware that English is not your first language but you cannot write as you have and expect people to read what may be in your mind
What must not be forgotten is until year 2005 Natural Climatic factors including solar all were in a warming mode, going back over a 100 years.
The inflection point was year 2005, now 16 years later we are still warming which leads to the question are Natural Climatic factors going to be dominant as we move forward and the only reason why this has not been the case thus far is due to lag times?
I honestly do not know the answer yet but I think the answer one way or the other will be known in the not to distant future.
I still think lag times have not been fully appreciated. The oceans are vast and do not respond quickly it can take several years.
Only time will tell but I will admit as each year goes by with continued warming it makes Natural Climatic factors not look very strong in the determination of the climate, but then again the climate has been shown to turn on a time even during the Holocene period of time.
Perhaps in a few days the Thames will start to freeze?
ren
It is currently not very probable. The last time was during the winter 1962-63, which was comparable to 1955/56 for Germany, France, Belgium.
In all three countries, February 1956 was over 10 degrees colder than the 30 year average for 1981-2010.
This might interest you:
https://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/discover/frost-fairs
J.-P. D.
JD, the fact that we’re even talking about ice on the Thames should tell you something. If you were able to think for yourself.
But it’s hard to think clearly when you’re in a cult.
Bindidon
https://www.wetteronline.de/14-tage-wetter
ren
I look every day at this chart since it is available, thanks.
The last time wetteronline.de promised us -11 C (about ten days ago) we got -6 C.
Thus I’m patient.
Today until now we had 5 cm snow; tomorrow there should be a bit more of it.
I’ll inform you, for sure.
ren
You spend all the time so much in looking at snow and ice.
Do you sometimes think of what happens e.g. here:
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/uttarakhand-glacier-burst-in-chamoli-damages-hydropower-plant-rescue-operations-underway/articleshow/80732809.cms
If you put a saucepan of water on a job set to 1) it might settle at 40C. Increase the incoming energy by increasing the setting to 2) and it might settle to 60C. Not instantly, but after ten minutes or so.That is lag.
Similarly the temperature of the surface layers of the ocean take time to increase after the incoming energy increases.
How big is the lag? The shortest estimate I’ve seen is 15 years.
I once used my favourite CO2 forcing equation to calculate the expected temperature curve with no lag. I plotted my expected temperatures onto a printout graph of the observed temperature curve and compared them.
The observed temperatures lagged 25 years behind the no-lag expected temperatures.
This means that todays temperature reflects the full warming effect of the 360ppm CO2 level in the mid-1990s. The full effect of today’s 411ppm CO2 won’t show until 2045.
In the news today – the Earth warmed because of cleaner air caused by the pandemic-induced lockdown. This seems speculative, and suggests clean air is a positive feedback the more people die the cleaner the air gets. Or somebody is wrong about the warming or its cause.
Lockdown reduces activity, from transport to industry.
CO2_emissions were down 15% in 2020 and particulates probably reduced by a similar amount.
Fewer particulates, less reflection of visible light to space.
Less reflection, more energy reaching the surface.
More energy reaching the ground, warmer temperatures.
He careful not to confuse correlation and causation. Clearer air and more deaths are both directly or indirectly caused by the presence of Covid-19, but more deaths did not cause clearer air.
Population control is bandied about by the alarmists as a necessity to saving the planet, not that any of them are willing to go first.
Biologists like myself are familiar with the concept of overshoot and it’s ecological consequences.
“https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overshoot_(population) ”
The planet will survive whatever we do to it, but our civilization will probably not and our species might not.
To paraphrase Bill Bryson.
70% of the planet is water. Of the remaining 30%, half is too hot, cold, wet, dry, steep or lofty to live on.
If you divide the remaining land by the current population you get about 1.25 football pitches per person for all purposes.
I would be interested to hear your estimate of how many people per football pitch the Earth can support, how long it can do it for and what measures you would suggest to stop us overwhelming that carrying capacity.
Ent, according to such nonsense the planet was supposed to be without oil and food by now.
But, be as scared as you want.
I’m sorry, did I miss the answer to this question? I’ve published 175 Stations that show no uptrend in temperatures.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/#comment-609730
Has someone explained why these stations are showing no warming even though CO2 has increased from 300 to 415 PPM?
People keep posting distractions like meaningless trend coefficients when the R-Sqr makes them meaningless. Facts are there are plenty of stations that show no warming, and some even show clear downtrends in temperatures. How is that possible? Those stations are chosen from all contents where they were available.
Once again, why are these sites not showing no warming? More importantly, none show dramatic Dog-Legs that start in 1902 like the Hockeystick. None.
CO2isLife said: Has someone explained why these stations are showing no warming even though CO2 has increased from 300 to 415 PPM?
First…of the stations I randomly selected ALL showed statistically significant warming trends.
Second…we’ve already explain to you multiple times why there is some much variation in the temperature values on small spatial and temporal scales. What specifically are you not understanding?
CO2isLife said: People keep posting distractions like meaningless trend coefficients when the R-Sqr makes them meaningless.
These trends are meaningful. They are statistically significant. And I’ve already explained to you the difference between the R^2 metric and trend uncertainty metric. R^2 is a measure of the variance between the linear regression value and the actual value. The higher the variance the lower the R^2. That is NOT to be conflated with the standard error on the slope of the trend itself. That is a different metric.
For example…Mukteswar Kumaon has a trend from 1897-2020 of +0.120C/decade +/- 0.012. That means with confidence we can eliminate trends lower than +0.108C/decade. The R^2 of 0.47 tells us that only a portion of the variance in the actual values can be explained by the regression values. It in no way takes away from the fact that +0.108C/decade is the lower bound on the trend.
CO2isLife
You are entirely correct that we are cooling, rather than warming.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_January_2021_v6.jpg
The temperature has cooled from anomaly 0.62C in January 2016 to 0.12C in January 2020. -0.5C in four years, a cooling rate of 0.125C/year.
We will be back at 1880 temperatures in nine years and into the next glacial period in forty years.
bdgwx:
“First…of the stations I randomly selected ALL showed statistically significant warming trends.”
1) Please define Staristically Significant Trend. If you have a trend calculated off a regression with an R-Sqr of 0.00, a statically significant coefficient is meaningless. If you have a “trend” defined by LINEST, and temperatures within the past 10 years are below the level set in 1880, then you don’t have an uptrend. No matter how much you want to believe it, you don’t have an uptrend.
2) If temperatures in the last 10 years are below the levels set in the early period of the 1900s, do you consider that an uptrend. If you do, you are simply wrong.
“Second…we’ve already explain to you multiple times why there is some much variation in the temperature values on small spatial and temporal scales. What specifically are you not understanding?
1) Using your analysis and this statement, how are you deriving what warming is due to CO2 and what warming is due to natural factors?
2) How is CO2 and its small marginal continually increasing contribution to W/M^2 responsible for such high variation in temperatures?
3) How do you know that the warming isn’t due to natural variation and not related to CO2?
“These trends are meaningful. They are statistically significant. And I’ve already explained to you the difference between the R^2 metric and trend uncertainty metric. R^2 is a measure of the variance between the linear regression value and the actual value. The higher the variance the lower the R^2. That is NOT to be conflated with the standard error on the slope of the trend itself. That is a different metric.”
1) Your analysis it totally dependent upon the outilers
2) OK, you have a statistically significant coefficient, what evidence do you have that it is due to CO2?
3) What % of that variation is due to CO2? Certainly 0.00% of any doentrend, or can adding W/M^2 to a system magically cause it to cool?
4) Let me run the regression. What chart are you referring to? I’m pretty sure that if I eliminate the end point outliers they will show 0.00 warming.
5) Your analysis is totally dependent upon the selected time period, and I will demonstrate that if we ran your analysis 10 years ago, you would get the opposite outome. CO2 can’t cause the recent spikes. You are dependent upon recent spikes in temperatures, something that can’t be attributed to CO2, to make your case.
For example…Mukteswar Kumaon has a trend from 1897-2020 of +0.120C/decade +/- 0.012. That means with confidence we can eliminate trends lower than +0.108C/decade. The R^2 of 0.47 tells us that only a portion of the variance in the actual values can be explained by the regression values. It in no way takes away from the fact that +0.108C/decade is the lower bound on the trend.
1) That is nonsense, and I’ll demonstrate it.
2) If something stays in a range over 140 years, and occasionally pokes out the top or bottom of that range, only to fall back into it, you can’t claim that something that continually adds W/M^2 to the system could be the cause of the warming. Evidence of warming isn’t evidence CO2 is causing that warming.
“Please define Staristically Significant Trend.”
I presume you already know, but for the benefit of the lurkers:-
All temperature averages are sample means, the average of a number of measurements.
Call each measurement X, the mean Xbar and the number of measurements or samples n.
Xbar = sumX/n
Individual samples spread above or below the mean. The amount of spread is called the standard deviation SD.
SD = sum (X-Xbar)^2 / n
(Note-there are several equivalent ways to calculate SD. This is the formula I was taught in school)
About half the samples are less than 1SD from the mean and 95% of them closer than 2SD.
When discussing uncertainty, it is customary to quote the mean +/- 2SD, known as the 95% confidence limits.
There is a 95% chance that the mean of whatever you were sampling is between those limits.
For temperature averages the SD is usually below 0.05C and 95% confidence limits less than +/-0.1C.
Are two means different? There will be small differences due to random chance, or larger differences due to some cause.
There are various tests, but one of the simplest ways to decide if two means are similar or different is to calculate the difference between them measured in SDs. If the difference is less than 4SDs, there is a real chance that any difference is due to chance.If the difference is greater than 4SD (ie the 95% confidence limits do not overlap) then the probability that the difference is due to some cause is greater than 95%.
This is a Statistically Significant difference.
As a rule of thumb, if two temperature averages are more than 0.2C apart, there is probably a real difference between them.
“SD = sum (X-Xbar)^2 / n”
Actually, that is the SD squared. I assume you simply left that off accidentally.
“There is a 95% chance that the mean of whatever you were sampling is between those limits.”
There is a 95% chance that a new data point would fall within that range (making a few basic assumptions).
The uncertainty of the the mean is actually much smaller — by a factor of 1/n^0.5.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_error
With enough data, two distributions that overlap greatly can still be told apart. For example, one distribution could be a normal distribution with mean = 0 and SD = 1. The other could be SD = 0.1 and SD = 1. If you pick 100 from each distribution, you would not be able to tell which was which, because the uncertainty of the means would be +/- 1/(100^0.5) = 0.1. But if you draw 10000 from each, the uncertainty of each mean is only 1/(10000^0.5) = 0.01. Now the difference is quite clear.
Uncertainties of slopes ALSO depend on the number of points. If R^2 = 0.47 and you only have 10 points, you would have a huge uncertainly in the slope. If R^2 = 0.47 and you have 1000 points, you would have a a MUCH smaller uncertainty in the slope.
If R^2 = 0.47 and you only have 10 points, you would have a huge uncertainly in the slope. If R^2 = 0.47 and you have 1000 points, you would have a a MUCH smaller uncertainty in the slope.
+1.
Senility beckons. I forgot the square root sign. Rueful smile emoji.
Set 1…
1) A statistically significant trend is one in which the standard error of the slope is less than the slope itself. +0.120C/decade +/- 0.012 is statistically significant because 0.012 is way smaller than 0.120. In fact, it is 10x smaller. We know that the trend is at least +0.096C/decade with 97.9% confidence.
2) It depends on the entirety of the data. If the slope (b) minus the standard error (s) is greater than 0 such that s-b > 0 than we say the entirety of the data has a positive trend with statistical significance regardless of the trends of any of the subsets of that data. In fact, you can even have several of the subsets with negative trends even though the entirety of the data has a positive trend. This is known as Simpson’s Paradox. Anyway, the point is that a set of data has a trend defined by the linear regression analysis. It is completely objective approach.
Set 2…
1) I’m not trying to here. First…I wouldn’t attempt this from a single station alone. Second…even with global mean temperature data you must removed the contribution to the trend from non-CO2 sources. The difference between the non-CO2 trend and the actual trend is the CO2 contribution. That is very difficult analysis to do.
2) It’s not responsible for the variability.
3) On a global scale scientists identify and quantify all forcing agents. The net effect of the natural component is for a slight cooling trend.
Set 3…
1. No it isn’t. The analysis uses ALL data. I literally plugin ALL values into Excel’s LINEST function.
2. I have no evidence to present for or against the linear regression trend on a single site.
3. I don’t know what % of the variability of annual mean temperatures at a single site are due to CO2. I will say that it is likely VERY low.
4. Download the CSV file from the GISTEMP station data page. The link is underneath the graph.
5. No it isn’t. The analysis uses ALL data. I literally plugin ALL values into Excel’s LINEST function.
Set 4…
1. You are more than welcome to double check my work. Download the CSV file and enter =LINEST(R2:RXXX,,true,true) into a 3×2 matrix of cells. R1C1 is the slope, R2C1 is the standard error, and R3C1 is the R^2 value.
2. No one is claiming that CO2 can explain the temperature variability at select sites. The only thing being claimed is that CO2 creates a positive slope on the linear regression trend on global mean temperatures as measured over long periods of time.
+1
bdgwx has provided the trends plus the uncertainties for a few of the stations you say show no warming trend. The work has been done. These stations show statistically significant warming trends.
From where I’m sitting it looks like your eyes must glaze over each time bdgwx presents these trends with their statistical significane to you.
Directed to CO2isL
Robert E. Lee, owner of hundreds of slaves. Lee was smart enough to know he couldn’t say… I’m joining Virginia because I support slavery… Like most Confederates, it was about state’s rights. Balderdash.
Bindidon,
Sorry if I have bothered you because it was not my intention. When one insults, he loses the ability to reason with the other and it is a shame.
I say it in general. Hopefully whoever has this habit will realize and change …
And thank God it’s not all the time or all of it !!
Barry And everyone,
I have done a search in Google scholar, putting “coronavirus vaccine ADE Risk” year 2021, and these two publications have seemed particularly interesting:
ADE: Antibody-dependent enhancement
It is a mechanism of exacerbation of inflammatory symptoms that could occur after reinfection with the coronavirus.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667325821000200
“Since the COVID-19 pandemic emerged and spread on a large scale, scientists around the world continue to engage relentless efforts to develop SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, including spike-based DNA/RNA vaccines, inactivated virus vaccines, live attenuated virus vaccines, recombinant viral-vectored vaccines, and protein subunit vaccines. Vaccine design considerations include the selection of antigens, vaccine platforms, and vaccination routes and regimens. The main purpose of developing a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is to generate a sustained memory humoral immune response and to produce specific NAbs to prevent the entry of SARS-CoV-2 into host cells. We propose that vaccines designed to elicit specific NAbs will be effective in preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections.
The potential risk of vaccine-induced ADE cannot be ignored in the course of vaccine development and use. Regarding SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, and dengue virus infection, it has been found that the presence of sub-neutralizing or cross-reactive non-NAbs has a theoretical potential to enhance infection and to trigger harmful immuno-pathology. Considering these cases, anti-SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies may fail to protect the body and, instead, exacerbate the disease severity. Although there is no proof available on the occurrence of ADE in SARS-CoV-2 infection, it should be considered a general concern for formulating antibody therapy strategies for SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development.”
https://scholar.google.es/scholar?as_ylo=2021&q=+coronavirus+vaccine++ADE+risk&hl=es&as_sdt=0,5#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3D_a4r4a-0qLUJ
“mRNA based and adenovirus vectored vaccines, types of nucleic acid-based vaccination, were first ever or first commercially ever approved for the public, respectively. However, these new types possess a potential risk to induce auto-immune diseases more possibly in the short yet potentially the long term as well. On the other hand, all SARS CoV-2 types of vaccines, depending on the spike protein, including the conventional ones might increase the likelihood of COVID-19 severity upon re-infection through antibody dependent enhancement. Thus, a moral, legal, and constitutional public right to know and decide basing on a personalized risk benefit ratio must be secured. In this manuscript, we analyze the theoretical autoimmunity potential of SARS CoV-2 adenovirus vectored vaccines, after we have previously discussed the same potential for mRNA-based ones. Further, we explore the vulnerable groups of vaccines recipients who are generally more liable to develop autoimmune diseases and how might these groups modify the risk if decided to receive the vaccines.”
Adelaida
” Thus, a moral, legal, and constitutional public right to know and decide basing on a personalized risk benefit ratio must be secured. ”
*
Germany has sent to Portugal, on their demand, personnel and devices to help this country in its fight against SARS-COV-2:
” The Air Force Airbus A400M with 26 soldiers from the German Armed Forces and several dozen ventilators and infusion devices from Germany landed at the Figo Maduro military airport in Lisbon on Wednesday afternoon. ”
The Germans do that each year since decades for the seasonal flu, don’t they?
J.-P. D.
I read the preprint.
https://osf.io/s8c2e/
“Thus, a moral, legal, and constitutional public right to know and decide basing on a personalized risk benefit ratio must be secured.”
There is nothing in the paper to quantify the risk.
One in ten?
One in 100?
One in 1000?
One in 1 million?
One in 1 billion?
Having some slight acquaintance with these issues, I would expect the proportion of autoimmunity cases to be in the one in 10,000 to one in 100,000 range. The probability of dying of Covid is 0.1% to 1%.
People are very poor at making risk/benefit calculations. Without clear numbers, all that publicising this paper would achieve would be to put people off the vaccine.
The result would be to lose more people from lack of vaccination than you would save from autoimmunity.
Perhaps better to leave this piece of alarmist speculation in obscurity.
Much of it is luck of course be careful. Hope you stay well.
Bindidon,
What I have posted about vaccines is for you and everyone in the forum.
If you can wait to get the vaccine, wait. Right now and in the coming months, whoever receives the vaccine is still a guinea pig …
Also, you will not get rid of continuing to carry out all the security measures that we have carried out so far …
So it seems that It is better not to run to get the vaccine and instead continue to take care of ourselves as best as possible attentive to the evolution of the pandemic …
Adelaida
I’m patient, and my lady is too.
But… I’m sure you understood what I mean.
J.-P. D.
As an elderly man with an elderly wife we have a considerably greater than 1% chance of dying of Covid-19.
On the basis of the trials to date, the risk of dying from the vaccine is considerably lower than 1%.
For us the odds favour vaccination, as soon as practical.
Meant to put it here. Be safe ,be careful.
For commenters interested in temperature time series processing
Take it please as it is: as what Frogs love to name “un petit exercice de style dominical”.
*
A few days ago, Roy Spencer’s monthly LT report was, as is usual, reblogged at WUWT.
And as happened some times already, there was a restart of a recurring discussion concerning the accuracy of 30 years long reference periods.
The argument is always the same: when you compute anomalies wrt the mean of 30 years, you have at best 50% of the AMO, what for WUWT aficionados automatically invalidates the resulting time series.
No wonder: AMO is at WUWT something like a sacrosanct institution.
A typical reaction:
” With a 60 year base line none of their claims are true. ”
(The commenter very probably had AGW or any similar warming in mind.)
*
But these claims unfortunately are not correct.
Years ago I compared anomalies out of a source (GHCN V3): wrt a 30 year period versus those wrt a 100 year period as done by NOAA.
The differences existed, but were by no means a high as some would have expected.
Today I thus eliminated possible sources for potential discrepancies, by
– using GHCN daily instead (over 40000 stations worldwide instead of 7280)
– restricting the comparison to a subset of stations with at least 105 years of activity; there were a bit over 2500.
Here is the comparison of anomaly time series out of these stations’ data
– wrt 1981-2010 as usual
and
– wrt 1951-2010, thus encompassing now 60 years, i.e. a full cycle of the (detrended!) AMO.
1. Comparison of original results
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IH1m1unvpo8Cu4TKq5GE5lE2AIskRpKP/view
Sure you know such pictures from experiences with WordForTrees: that happens each time you compare UAH with e.g. GISS
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/plot/gistemp/from:1979
without knowing/thinking that anomalies wrt 1981-2010 can’t be compared with anomalies wrt 1951-1980.
BUT: coming back to the GHCN daily example, you already will imagine, due to the displacement’s regularity, that the trends for the two time series can’t be so very different.
Trends in C / decade for 1880-2020
– 1951-2010: 0.12
– 1981-2010: 0.12
.. for 1979-2020
– 1951-2010: 0.12
– 1981-2010: 0.12
Yes: you’ve to go down to 3 places after the decimal point to see a difference.
*
2. Comparison with the anomalies wrt 1951-2010 displaced by the anomaly offset wrt 1981-2010
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-M5WoZikeua8ouP1QpthxJLmgGbtOKcM/view
Now you see it really: the difference is minimal, 0.02 C on average for the deviations in either direction.
*
3. Finally, I recalled having been attacked when presenting, e.g. through use of WFT, comparisons of time series generated out of different reference periods. That would be wrong!
So, why not do a more elaborate comparison, by displacing the time series on a monthly basis, instead of displacing it by the 360 month average?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18tRMTvOYMglBpmRQI-m-iTL6neciIY8i/view
Yeah. When switching between the two graphs, we can see some very tiny difference, there is a bit less red in the chart, he he.
But to see a difference in the trends, we must go down to the fourth place after the decimal point.
*
Conclusions:
– the claim that a 30 year baseline is not sufficient for valuable anomaly generation, is really insubstantial;
– the claim that a trivial displacing anomalies by the average over a reference period would lead to wrong results, is insubstantial too.
Thus, if you know that the GISS anomaly displacement for the period 1981-2010 is -0.423, feel free to use it.
But that of course won’t you get rid of the difference between the two, even wrt the dame reference period.
J.-P. D.
Typo, apos
for 1979-2020
– 1951-2010: 0.25
– 1981-2010: 0.25
Yeah, copy and paste…
J.-P. D.
bdgwx says:
For exampleMukteswar Kumaon has a trend from 1897-2020 of +0.120C/decade +/- 0.012. That means with confidence we can eliminate trends lower than +0.108C/decade. The R^2 of 0.47 tells us that only a portion of the variance in the actual values can be explained by the regression values. It in no way takes away from the fact that +0.108C/decade is the lower bound on the trend.
Mukteswar Kumaon (29.4667N, 79.6500E) ID:IN023420800
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=IN023420800&dt=1&ds=15
1) I encourage everyone to look at the stations I posted, and look at the one bdgwx selected. It is the outlier of all outliers and I hesitated selecting it because I was afraid it would trigger the exact conversation bdgwx is generating.
2) SImply look at the chart, my initial thought was an instrument error because after a gap in the data temperatures step up to a new range. CO2 can’t cause temperatures jumping from 12 to 15.5 in a year or 2. That is my point. bdgwx identifies a chart where an outlier is clearly what drives his statistics. In other words, jusnk science. A real scientist would have an answer as to how CO2 causes temps to increase from 12 to 15.5 in one or two years. bdgwx won’t even attempt to explain that. If he can’t explain that, he can’t explain why his regression stats are meaningful.
3) The lowest temperature level is set in 1995, yet bdgwx claims there is an uptrend. How can CO2 possibly be causing a warming trend when it continually adds W/M^2? What physics support that claim? None.
4) The upper range set in 1905 is rarely broken for 100 years, and current temperatures are below the level set in 1905
5) 90%+ of the data is below the level set in 1905, eliminate the outliers set post 1995 and you are likely up near 99%.
If you consider that an “uptrend” you have no idea what an uptrend is. Once again, show me a continuous string of higher highs and higher lows for the entirely of the period. That is what CO2 would do.
This is what an UpTrend looks like: There is no confusion.
Madrid Cuatrovientos (40.3778N, 3.7892W) ID:SPE00120287
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=SPE00120287&dt=1&ds=15
Buenos Aires Observ (34.583S, 58.483W) ID:AR000875850
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=AR000875850&ds=14&dt=1
Ekaterinburg (56.8331N, 60.6331E) ID:RSM00028440
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=RSM00028440&dt=1&ds=15
Innsbruck (47.2667N, 11.4000E) ID:AU000011801
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=AU000011801&dt=1&ds=15
CO2isLife
When will you stop posting these endless station lists which after all tell us nothing valuable?
When will you be willing to understand and accept that your trial of establishing a relation between surface temperatures and any kind of CO2 effect or non-effect is nonsensical?
If CO2 has ANY effect, then it is certainly NOT at the surface, but will begin where water vapor’s effect ends, namely above the altitude where water vapor precipitates and disappears.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, nothing of Value? I’m not sure you understand what valuable insight is.
Care to share any of your posts that demonstrate such valuable insights as this post?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/#comment-610087
Please post a link so others can see what you consider valuable insight. I’m really curious.
Jesus what are you boring.
I’m sorry, is there an answer to my question there?
How does CO2 cause warming in one location and not in another one right next door?
CO2isLife,
CO2 is a significant contributing factor to the trajectory of the red line in this graph. There are other factors as well though.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.png
CO2isLife said: CO2 cant cause temperatures jumping from 12 to 15.5 in a year or 2
Great. I’m glad you agree. Can we now move on to tests of the hypothesis that climate scientists actually advocate for instead of the ones that they’ve long ago rejected?
This is what an UpTrend Looks Like. It is due to building a huge number of building, roads, and other heat absorbing structures. It has nothing to do with CO2.
Honolulu Intl Ap (21.3239N, 157.9294W) ID:USW00022521
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=USW00022521&dt=1&ds=15
How do I know that warming isn’t due to CO2? Because if you go right next door, away from the Airport to Waialua, you get no warming.
Waialua 847 (21.5750N, 158.1203W) ID:USC00519195
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=USC00519195&ds=15&dt=1
How can two stations very close to each other, exposed to identical CO2 have such dramatically different temperatures trends? Simple, CO2 isn’t causing the warming.
Here are two other sites to review:
La Estanzuela Eele (34.45S, 57.85W) ID:UY000086562 https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=UY000086562&ds=14&dt=1
Buenos Aires Observ (34.583S, 58.483W) ID:AR000875850 https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=AR000875850&ds=14&dt=1
How can CO2 cause warming in one location but not the other? Answer? It can’t.
You need to be looking at the global mean temperature.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.png
Why do people religiously believe that there can be any valuable relation between
– surface temperatures, be it at land or on sea
and
– CO2’s effect or its contrary?
How is it possible to make such trivial assumptions?
Reminds me ‘race horse’, ‘ball-on-a-string’, ‘merry-go-round’, ‘two-coins’ and the like.
J.-P. D.
For a time series like UAH a significant warming trend would be expected to produce a difference of at least 0.2C between the beginning and the end.
UAH is noisy. To simplify the calculation you can use linear regression to smooth the graph to a straight line and compare the ends of the line.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1978/to:2021/every/plot/uah6/from:1978/to:2021/every/trend
As you see, the end of the green linear trend line is about 0.6C warmer than the start, well above the 0.2C threshold.
Curses.
This was a continuation of my response to CO2isLife’s February 7th 4.01pm post, discussing statistical significance.
It is still apposite. CO2is Life keeps publishing station data and claiming that they show no significant warming. Unfortunately he includes no statistical support for his claims.
Entropic man
” Unfortunately he includes no statistical support for his claims. ”
I generated yesterday a time series of the average of all these staions, and of course there was no trend.
No wonder: the absence of any trend was the primary criterion for CO2isLife’s station selection.
*
But… that is not the problem.
The problem is: what does a list of weather stations whose data doesn’t show a trend have to do with CO2’s activity?
NOTHING.
CO2’s activity starts above the tropopause, where water vapor’s activity begins to end, because it is a condensing gas.
J.-P. D.
“No wonder: the absence of any trend was the primary criterion for CO2isLifes station selection. ”
Always a problem with cherrypicked data.
CO2isLife is fixated on the straw man that CO2 is the only variable affecting surface temperature.
I don’t know what he’d make of Northern Ireland. The growing season is getting longer as shown by my gardener, who cut a customer’s lawn in December 2019 for the first time in 20 years of invoices. The Castlederg station 18 miles from my home recorded a new NI record low of -18C in 2010.
We’re simultaneously being affected by global warming and a weakening Gulf Stream. The result is a small change in annual average, but warmer Summers and cooler, more variable Winters.
“CO2isLife is fixated on the straw man that CO2 is the only variable affecting surface temperature.”
I’m fixated? This entire field of based upon proving CO2 is the cause. That is the only way to justify totalitarian socialist control of society and a crippling Carbon Tax. If CO2 isn’t the cause and everything is due to natural causes, why the key focus by everyone? There is nothing that can be done about it.
EY Man: I dont know what hed make of Northern Ireland. The growing season is getting longer as shown by my gardener, who cut a customers lawn in December 2019 for the first time in 20 years of invoices. The Castlederg station 18 miles from my home recorded a new NI record low of -18C in 2010.
Simple, the same thing happened during the Roman Warming Period. Vikings inhabited Greenland. Troy, and ancient coastal city is now miles inland, so is Thermolyle. Just look at the Carthage Harbor. Hanibal crossed the ALps with Elephants.
Facts are, things were much much warmer during the Holocene, and there are far more archilogical evidence of a warmer Holocene than the one example you gave.
CO2isLife said: Im fixated?
Yes. The vast majority of your posts contain claims that CO2 is the only thing that determines temperatures changes at specific locations.
CO2isLife said: This entire field of based upon proving CO2 is the cause.
False. This statement tells me you do not yet understand which hypothesis are support by the field and which ones have been long ago rejected.
“This entire field of based upon proving CO2 is the cause.”
Good points bdgwx 8:22am. In the field of climate studies “the cause” is meant the predominate cause of the black climate line moving up from just the earlier period. CO2isLife is looking for CO2 to be the cause of the meandering of the red/blue weather lines in the top post which have many causes/cycles including atm. opacity changes.
This is a climate blog not so much a weather blog so to contribute CO2isLife should concentrate on finding processes meaningful & useful causing the black climate line to rise from the earlier period. Concentrating on red/blue line weather meanderings is not especially meaningful or useful on a climate blog but comments related to such weather have proved entertaining around here and do motivate some enlightening experiments & posts by Dr. Spencer.
Bindidion Says: I generated yesterday a time series of the average of all these staions, and of course there was no trend.
No wonder: the absence of any trend was the primary criterion for CO2isLifes station selection.
Wrong, first, regressions aren’t the appropriate way to determine a trend of a data set with such voliotiliy. The Chart you referenced had the lowest temperature in 1995, and the data started back near 1900. How could CO2 cause a low temperature in 1995 when CO2 is 30% higher?
Do your regression between 1880 and 1995 of that exact same data set and you get the complete opposite conclusion.
I’ve published links to charts that show a true uptrend, and you complete ignore them.
Buenos Aires Observ (34.583S, 58.483W) ID:AR000875850 https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=AR000875850&ds=14&dt=1
The Buenos Aires trend is +0.088C/decade +/- 0.009. The R^2 on that is 0.42.
entropic…”UAH is noisy. To simplify the calculation you can use linear regression to smooth the graph to a straight line and compare the ends of the line”.
Only a raving alarmist would consider such an abuse of statistical methods.
Please describe your method for calculating temperature trends in the UAH temperature data and assessing their statistical significance.
binny…”YOU were the one who misrepresented NOAAs page during years and years”.
Here it is again Mr. Stupid…
https://web.archive.org/web/20130216112541/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
Quote from article: “Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe from 6,000 to less than 1,500?”
That’s NOAA talking but neither Binny nor Barry wants to hear it.
How can NOAA possibly cover the surface with less than 1500 reporting stations? Obvious:…with a whole lot of cheating.
Gordon Robertson
I read through the NOAA link and they seem intelligent thoughtful scientists. That you assume cheating is because you believe any lie from any contrarian. You will not accept any evidence but as soon as a Contrarian speaks you have no doubt that it is totally correct information. Some crackpot says measles virus does not exist and you accept it (even though it is a totally illogical conclusion based upon the available evidence such that a vaccine developed using a weaker version of a said nonexistent virus almost eliminated this illness).
Or you have a crackpot tell you Einstein is wrong even though mountains of evidence prove the theory is valid.
You will accept, blindly and with zero evidence, any crackpot contrarian. So what are you hoping to prove with your NOAA link?
N,
So the intelligent thoughtful scientists were only joking when they wrote –
* The 1,500 real-time stations that we rely on today are in locations where NOAA scientists can access information on the 8th of each month. *
Obviously the 8th was chosen because 8 is considered to be a lucky number in China!
These intelligent thoughtful scientists are also exceptionally gullible, believing –
* They found a 95% probability that the average rate of GMSL change over 1900–2000 was greater than during any preceding century in at least 2,800 years. * – based on a model using date from a whole 66 sites around the globe!
You just blindly accept anything the Government tells you. The Government needs more people like you, Norman. Doesnt that make you feel good?
Swenson
Your problem is you just skim read to look for things. Read the whole thing and consider what they are saying. There are other evidence besides temperature records to indicate the Earth surface is warming.
When did I state I blindly accepted what this agency told me. I said they sounded like intelligent thoughtful scientists. That does not correlate to accepting everything they say is correct or perfectly true.
Maybe ask them why they chose the 8th of every month. Perhaps they will give you an acceptable explanation. Speculating on this to make fun of them is not rational, you need to supply some evidence before attacking a group.
That is one flaw with the world today. Everyone is now accepting things with zero evidence. People just say whatever on whatever blog and it is absolute true. Don’t even think of questioning it!
Quonan states that evil Satanic baby eating leaders are going to be taken down by Trump and they accept this as fact with zero evidence.
ClintR posts endless opinions on physics, never supplying any supporting evidence, and we are supposed to accept it all as fact. If you question him on anything you are then considered an idiot. Gordon Robertson also does the same. He posts unsupported opinions from crackpots and they are absolute face that no one can refute.
Norman is shattered because his knowledge of physics is so poor he can’t understand the simplest examples. A spherical black body absorbing 960 W//m^2 solar emits 240 W/m^2 at equilibrium. 960 does NOT equal 240. Flux is NOT conserved.
Norman can’t understand and can’t learn. All he has are his false opinions, insults, and false accusations.
He’s an idiot.
N,
What makes you think I didnt read and consider the whole thing?
It was I who said you are gullible, not you. What things do you you believe they say are not correct or true? Or dont you know?
I dont need to supply any evidence, you fool. They supply enough. As to the 8th of the month, you dont seem to have a better explanation. You assume that mine is wrong, without any evidence.
You have a funny world view. You make claims about * Everyone . . . *, which a patently untrue! Are you one of these people? If you arent, you just lied, didn’t you?
You are a fool, and a dimwit.
I will let others make their own judgements.
Robertson
You can name me ‘stupid‘ as long as you want.
Fact is that
– this page was accessed on 2010, March 23, and is certainly much older;
– on the page you can read:
‘However, over time, the data record for surface temperatures has actually grown, thanks to the digitization of historical books and logs, as well as international data contributions.
As usual, you keep anything away whenever it does not fit into your lies.
The number of GHCN V2/V3 stations has constantly been 7280 over the years: I should know it better, as I began to evaluate GHCN V3 in 2014.
You never have accessed NOAA’s data, never did have a look at it, let alone would you have ever been able to process it. The same holds for all other data sets as well.
*
For such a job, pseudo-engineer Robertson is not experienced enough.
And that is exactly the reason why he writes
” How can NOAA possibly cover the surface with less than 1500 reporting stations? Obvious: with a whole lot of cheating. ”
*
You are exactly what you insult others with, Robertson: a cheating SOB.
J.-P. D.
GR,
Do you understand that the page is talking about stations that report in realtime?
GHCN-M v4 now contains more than 27,000+ stations.
bdgwx
Exactly.
And GHCN daily, the source of GHCN-M v4, contains over 40,000 stations measuring temperature.
Ignorant people like Robertson pretend they would be made out of synthesized data, imagine.
When you processed the data out of many US stations some years ago, you could see what I named ‘Celsius-Fahrenheit bumps’: sudden increases of temperature, which one learns over time to identify with a switch in the weather station from Celsius in Fahrenheit mode, probably due to the fact that when a station was shut down and rebooted, it came up automatically in Fahrenheit mode at reboot time.
That gave strange effects, e.g. stations in Oregon having suddenly a temperature like in Djeddah, Saudi Arabia!
It was impossible to discover such errors in the average temperatures, the effect was too tiny. It appeared only when you performed a descending sort of the data.
It must have been huge work to find all these places because a full automated processing hardly could have been possible.
Synthesized data, hu?
J.-P. D.
CO2IsLife…”CO2 cant cause temperatures jumping from 12 to 15.5 in a year or 2″.
Anyone with a lick of scientific understanding knows that. Thanks for you work in exposing this chicanery.
The scientific truth is that CO2 at 0.04% of the atmosphere can cause no more warming per degree C than its mass percent. That means about 0.04C per degree C.
As Canadian applied mathematician Christopher Essex put it, place two thermometers side by side at the claimed global average of 15.2C and see if you can distinguish the difference in another thermometer showing the claimed global warming. He also claims that the global average is not a temperature but an index.
Statistics are not useful in climatology because natural parameters change over 60-year cycles. You have to keep statistics until the top of the cycle (30 years) and from the top of the cycle (another 30 years).
In longer periods, the most important parameter changes – the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field. It is quite high now, but it is falling.
Apart from being completely wrong with regard to theory, what else has GR stuffed up?
Hint, he has multiplied a fraction (.04%) times a temperature (1 degC) to arrive at .04 per degree C.
Where did this 1 degC come from?
Why not use 1 deg Farenheit or 1 deg Rankine or 1 deg Romer or …..?
You get a different and arbitrary sensitivity each time depending on what temperature scale you use.
It is like saying the temperature will increase from 1 degC today to 2 deg C tomorrow – an increase of 100% when the next person says “No, it will increase from 33 degF to 34 degF – an increase of only about 1%”. Same temperature change but both meaningless interpretations.
A schoolboy error.
Dont be too harsh on GR – he follows Chris Essex.
You are incorrect studentb. He has multiplied .04% by 100degC to get .04 degC.
The question remains where did he pluck 100 degC from?
If he knew anything about the ideal gas law he would know that you use absolute temperatures – or a value of about 300K for present day surface average temperatures.
i.e. .04% time 300K gets you .12K – or .12 degC. While both numbers are meaningless, at least my estimate is not out by a factor of 3.
Gordon is right. Only an increase in the mass of the troposphere can raise the surface temperature proportionally. By what percentage does man increase the mass of the troposphere?
This is why La Nina has such a big influence on global temperature.
In 140 years increasing the CO2 concentration has raised the tropopause by 60 metres. That has increased the mass of the troposphere by 7.8kg per square metre of surface, a total of 3.910^15kg.
Sea level pressure is ~ 10,000 kg/m^2. If the temperature really does increase in proportion to the mass of the troposphere (which I doubt), 140 years of tropopause rise would have increased the temperature by 287 * 7.8/10,000 = 0.22K.
That is not enough to explain the observed 1.2C
ET: Can we finally drop the CO2 is the sole cause for all temperatures changes on all spatial and temporal scales strawman then?
I’ve shown 175 Charts that show no warming. How does that observation cause only temperatures near cities to increase, and desert areas to show no warming at all?
CO2isLife
” … and desert areas to show no warming at all? ”
Again and again and again: this is WRONG.
You have been shown weeks ago that the average trend for 113 desert stations in GHCN V3 (even when including the Antarctic!) was not zero at all, as you pretended by showing only one or two stations.
Here is the graph:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Maa7AKnB7RblEG7-qQU-v4mq_FAHNgyj/view
Trend for 1890-2019 (end of GHCN V3): 0.10 C/decade, what is higher than the global average (0.07 C/decade).
Please stop your permanent misrepresentation of facts.
Why are you, after weeks, still unable to calculate the trend of the stations you show, and use your eye-balling instead?
All stations you show have data in ‘csv’ format, so it should be quite easy for a genius like you to compute trends.
Don’t you know how to use the LINEST function in Excel (RGP in German customisations) ?
J.-P. D.
CO2isLife said: I’ve shown 175 Charts that show no warming.
Patently False. Many of those definitely show warming. I checked. Like…as in I actually downloaded the csv files and did a LINEST on them.
“CO2IsLife…”CO2 cant cause temperatures jumping from 12 to 15.5 in a year or 2″.
Anyone with a lick of scientific understanding knows that. Thanks for you work in exposing this chicanery.”
Ahh, the voice of reason. Thanks Gordon. This Blog can make you think you are living in the Twlight Zone.
Can we finally drop the “CO2 is the sole cause for all temperatures changes on all spatial and temporal scales” strawman then?
bdgwx: Can we finally drop the “CO2 is the sole cause for all temperatures changes on all spatial and temporal scales” strawman then?
I’m not even sure how you could possibly even make that claim that. 100% of my efforts are directed at proving 1 thing and one thing only, the CO2 doesn’t cause temperature change over time or space. That is why I specifically choose long-term charts (temporal) chosen all over the globe (spatial).
Unless you haven’t been following what I’ve been doing, that is exactly what I’ve been doing. I’ve been exposing this fraud that CO2 drives temperatures. Are you telling me that you and others don’t believe that CO2 is a significant driver of temperatures?
1) How does equal CO2 cause a temporal differential in temperatures?
2) How does equal CO2 cause a spatial differential in temperatures?
I can choose two nearly identical locations that will show a sharp increase in temperatures and a flat or even falling temperature chart. How is that possible if CO2 drives temperatures? It can’t. Are you saying that now you agree with me that this AGW Theory is a complete fraud?
CO2isLife said: That is why I specifically choose long-term charts (temporal) chosen all over the globe (spatial).
I’ve not seen you post a link to a chart of the global mean temperature.
I’ve only seen you post links to charts of select station temperatures.
CO2isLife said: Are you telling me that you and others don’t believe that CO2 is a significant driver of temperatures?
I do not believe that CO2 is the sole or even significant driver of the variability we observe for temperatures at specific sites and over short periods of time.
I do believe that CO2 is a significant driver of the positive trend of the global mean temperature over long periods of time.
If you do not understand the difference between these two then ask questions. I’ll be more than happy to provide clarifying answers as best I can.
CO2isLife said: How does equal CO2 cause a temporal differential in temperatures?
CO2 is not the sole or even a significant factor in the temporal variability of temperatures.
Don’t hear what I didn’t say though. I didn’t say that CO2 was not a significant factor in the long term global scale mean temperature trend. It is.
CO2isLife said: How does equal CO2 cause a spatial differential in temperatures?
CO2 is not the sole or even a significant factor in the spatial variability of temperatures.
Don’t hear what I didn’t say though. I didn’t say that CO2 was not a significant factor in the long term global scale mean temperature trend. It is.
CO2isLife said: I can choose two nearly identical locations that will show a sharp increase in temperatures and a flat or even falling temperature chart. How is that possible if CO2 drives temperatures?
Because CO2 is not the sole or even a significant factor in the spatial and temporal variability of temperatures.
Don’t hear what I didn’t say though. I didn’t say that CO2 was not a significant factor in the long term global scale mean temperature trend. It is.
CO2isLife said: Are you saying that now you agree with me that this AGW Theory is a complete fraud?
Absolutely not. What I’m saying is that your posts lead me to believe to that you do not understand what AGW even says.
I don’t think this a matter of you simply rejecting the evidence. I think the bigger issue is that you don’t even know what hypothesis are supported by the theory and which ones are rejected.
The temperature of the Peruvian Current drops again.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta_global_1.png
The high SOI index provides high cloud cover and cooling in Australia.
https://i.ibb.co/RHyvm16/Screenshot-1.png
I predict 30 cm of snow in Berlin.
WEBCAM BERLIN BRANDENBURGER TOR LIVE STREAM
https://www.earthtv.com/en/webcam/berlin-brandenburger-tor
ren
Until now, since Saturday morning: about 12 cm.
Try harder, ren!
J.-P. D.
Bindidon
It is still snowing and will continue to snow in Berlin.
Hibbing, MN Weather Conditions
https://i.ibb.co/gWpCkPY/Screenshot-2.png
https://www.wunderground.com/dashboard/pws/KMNHIBBI9?cm_ven=localwx_pwsdash
A video worth watching.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/ideas/videos/five-simple-ways-to-sharpen-your-critical-thinking/p0929tns?playlist=made-in-partnership-with-the-open-university
Lets’s find out if you learned anything from your video, Ent.
If you swing a ball-on-a-string around your head, is the ball rotating about its axis?
a) Yes
b) No
In what frame of reference?
How about in the frame of reference called “reality”.
From the frame of reference in which the origin is in the center of the orbit, and the Cartesian axes remain pointing towards distant fixed stars, the ball on a string is rotating about an axis that is external to the ball, and not about its own center of mass. The answer is b) No.
Or in simple terms that even idiots should understand — if the ball were really rotating about its axis, the string would wrap around it.
We’ll never get them to admit the truth. If they have to face reality, their cult falls apart.
Since the string is also rotating, no it wouldn’t wrap around the ball.
“We’ll never get them to admit the truth. If they have to face reality, their cult falls apart.”
Certainly seems that way. Some of them are best just ignored. Others can be useful to respond to, if only for the benefit of those who might be reading and not commenting.
The earth’s gravitational force on the moon acts …
a) at the single point on the surface of the moon closest to the earth, so a ball on a string is a useful analogy.
b) uniformly throughout the moon, so a ball on a string is NOT a useful analogy.
(Yeah, there is a lot more to it than this, but balls on strings or trains on tracks or horses on merry-go-rounds simply are not useful analogies here.)
Wrong Tim. You are still confused about orbital motion. The ball-on-a-string is a model of pure orbital motion in that the same side always faces the inside of the orbit. That’s how we know Moon is NOT rotating about its axis.
The angular momentum of the moon is
L = MRv + (2/5)Mr^2(omega_moon)
where M = mass of moon; R = radius from barycenter to center of moon (which varies throughout the orbit); v = speed of moon (which also varies, as does omega_orbit = orbital angular speed around the barycenter); r = radius of moon; omega_moon = angular momentum of moon about its own axis.
This principle is found in just about physics text on mechanics. omega_orbit is NOT equal to omega_moon. The rotating moon has it’s OWN angular momentum due to its OWN rotation about its axis. Even when one side is always toward the earth. Even for a perfectly circular orbit.
This is now we know the moon IS rotating!
More circular logic from Tim. We know the moon is rotating on its own axis because we can choose to calculate its total angular momentum by assuming that the moon is rotating on its own axis in the calculation.
Wrong again, TF. What true in “mechanics” does not always apply to orbital motion.
omega_moon = omega_ball = 0
Neither Moon nor ball is rotating about its axis.
(See “confirmation bias” at Ent’s link.)
As seen from the sun, the moon rotates about its axis once every 27.322 earth days.
This can be fun. If I’m allowed to choose my own frame of reference I can prove that the Earth is not rotating on its axis.
Relative to me the Earth is not rotating.
Relative to you the Earth appears not to be rotating on its own axis.
From the frame of reference in which the origin is in the center of the orbit, and the Cartesian axes remain pointing towards distant fixed stars, the moon is rotating about an axis that is external to the moon, and not about its own center of mass. The moon is not rotating on its own axis.
From the frame of reference in which the origin is in the center of the orbit, and the Cartesian axes remain pointing towards distant fixed stars, the Earth is rotating about an axis that is external to the Earth, and rotating about its own center of mass. The Earth is rotating on its own axis.
Obviously to Ent, “critical thinking” involves perverting reality to fit his confirmation bias.
So Clint is now reduced to arguing that the application of “mechanics” to “orbits” to create the subclassification of “orbital mechanics” is not actually “mechanics”. That somehow L = (2/5)Mr^2(omega) works for balls in a lab but not moons in orbit.
The brilliance of Newton and the falling apple was not that gravity pulled on the apple, but that the SAME gravity that pulled in Newton and on the apple ALSO pulled on the moon. That the same laws that apply on earth also apply to the moon and to the rest of universe. Clint wants to go backwards and have special cases for the moon — where L = I(omega) simply doesn’t apply to the moon.
DREMT
“Relative to you the Earth appears not to be rotating on its own axis. ”
And relative to me the Moon appears not to be rotating on its axis.
In both cases the apparent lack of rotation is an illusion generated by my special position on the surface of the Earth.
From the vast majority of viewpoints both the Moon and the Earth can be seen to rotate and it is not an illusion.
Tim,
You have defined the angular momentum of the center of the moon relative to the barycenter.
No problem. A ball on a string.
Try calculating the angular momentum of a point ofn the moons surface relative to the moons center. A horse of a different colour. A unicorn, even. Does not exist.
Maybe you need to reread Newton, and his observations about a cannonball fired parallel to the Earths surface. Newton knew that a cannonball from a smooth bore cannon did not rotate on its axis. Nor does gravity make a falling apple rotate on its axis (in a vacuum, in case you want to complain about me overlooking the unequal resistance of the air. Newton was aware of this, too.)
Try figuring out why the Earth rotates, why its orbit is the shape and inclination it is, and why it possesses the obliquity it does. I would be interested in knowing.
DREMT: “From the frame of reference in which the origin is in the center of the orbit, and the Cartesian axes remain pointing towards distant fixed stars, the moon is rotating about an axis that is external to the moon, and not about its own center of mass.”
This is the wrong emphasis. The moon is rotating. Period. Just stop there. It is rotating at a constant rate omega_moon = 2pi radians per 27.321 days = 2.66E-6 rad/s relative to the ‘fixed stars’.
The moon has a spin angular momentum of L = 0.396MR^2I(omega_moon) =2.33E29 kg*m^2 which is constant.
The moon does not have spin angular momentum = L = I(omega_orbit) (which changes throughout the orbit between 2.39E-6 to 2.98E-6 rad/sec).
The moon also does not have spin angular momentum = L = I(0) = 0.
The moon rotates at its own rate, independent of the rate that the moon orbits around the earth. The simplest way to model this is that the moon spins on its own axis at the fixed rate of 2.66E-6 rad/s and the moon’s center of mass travels in an ellipse with a variable angular rate of 2.39E-6 to 2.98E-6 rad/sec.
(All numbers courtesy of of NASA, although I had to do some calculations with their numbers).
Once again, Ent and TF must resort to distractions and distortions to avoid reality.
Neither one can answer the simple question truthfully. Neither one is interested in truth.
They have a false religion to protect.
Entropic Man, you are not listening to me.
“From the vast majority of viewpoints both the Moon and the Earth can be seen to rotate and it is not an illusion.”
There is actually only one viewpoint from which the moon appears to be rotating on its own axis. That is a reference frame in which the origin is in the center of mass of the moon, and the Cartesian axes remain pointing towards distant fixed stars.
Once again, from the frame of reference in which the origin is in the center of the orbit, and the Cartesian axes remain pointing towards distant fixed stars, the moon is rotating about an axis that is external to the moon, and not about its own center of mass. The moon is not rotating on its own axis.
It is the same story from all other viewpoints. The moon is rotating about an axis that is external to the moon (“orbiting”), and not rotating about its own center of mass. You are mistaking this movement for one that includes axial rotation of the moon.
It is nearly impossible to explain this to people who are open-minded, let alone people that have no desire to understand.
DREMT
The conventional view would appear to disagree with you.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
I quote.
“Tidal locking (also called gravitational locking, captured rotation and spinorbit locking), in the best-known case, occurs when an orbiting astronomical body always has the same face toward the object it is orbiting. This is known as synchronous rotation: the tidally locked body takes just as long to rotate around its own axis as it does to revolve around its partner. ”
Particular emphasis on “the tidally locked body takes just as long to rotate around its own axis as it does to revolve around its partner. ”
The animation shows this.
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Again I quote.
“Tidal locking results in the Moon rotating about its axis in about the same time it takes to orbit the Earth. “
I am aware that the conventional view disagrees, and not remotely bothered.
Ent, the “tidal locking’ nonsense is just as bogus as the lunar rotation nonsense. Your fascination with nonsense is as amazing as your rejection of reality.
“There is actually only one viewpoint from which the moon appears to be rotating on its own axis. That is a reference frame in which the origin is in the center of mass of the moon”
Uhh, no, and weird.
When a spinning baseball is flying on an arc past us, we can clearly observe it spinning on its axis. We don’t need to be at the center of the ball to see this.
As long as we are in the inertial frame (no matter the origin) we can see the rotation.
This is all I got
“I’m a lumberjack and I’m OK
I sleep all night and I work all day
I cut down trees, I skip and jump
I think the Moon don’t spin
I like to press wild flowers
I put on women’s clothing and hang around in bars”
bob wrote –
Something completely irrelevant and pointless.
No wonder he cant hold down a decent job.
“The animation shows this.
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif”
Actually, this gif is useful. The moon on the left is rotating about an axis in the center of the white circle, and not about its own center of mass. The moon on the right is doing this too, but it is also rotating on its own axis, in the opposite direction to its orbital motion, once per orbit.
Nate tries the usual alarmist irrelevant and pointless analogy. Spinning baseballs yet!
Nate, the Moon just falls towards the Earth. As Newton pointed out, from the point of view of distant stars, the Moon seems to spin on its axis. But it spins no more than a cannonball falling towards th3 Earth.
Why should it?
Maybe alarmists have come up with another magical property of CO2. Moon spinning!
Is there nothing CO2 cannot do?
“Once again, Ent and TF must resort to distractions” like actual data and actual equations. I guess we should just stick to analogies and intuition and guessing.
“Actually, this gif is useful. The moon on the left is rotating about an axis in the center of the white circle, and not about its own center of mass.”
Again, that is one possible model. And it works fine for a perfectly circular orbit. But how do you extend this to include non-circular orbits? You need a precise equation/description of how a moon in an elliptical orbit would move. So far I have never seen anything more than hand-waving.
Does the “string” simply stretch, keeping the same side toward the earth (equivalent to a ball sliding in an out on a rigid rod that sweeps around at variable rates)? But that would eliminate libration. Does is travel like a train car on a track? That would give a different wrong libration.
The simple way to accurately explain libration is consider an “orbit” to just be the motion of a point along an ellipse. No orientation — just a point. Gravity mere predicts the motion of this point, so already this is better than imagining some string or platform or track that adds forces not predicted by gravity.
Then to that motion of a point (the center of mass), you add a rotation about the axis of the moon at a constant rate relative to the stars. This is what conservation of angular momentum predicts.
So “traditional science” has simple, universal theories AND accurate predictions. The “ball-on-stringers” and “train-on-trackers” have neither of these.
Tim,
A couple of things. Even Wikipedia acknowledges 3 different types of libration, and points out that they are merely perceptions. The moon does not physically wiggle side to side, or up and down.
As to the Moon appearing to rotate with respect to distant stars, once again, this is perception.
The Moon continuously falls towards the Earth. Just like a cannon ball. Directly beneath it, you see one hemisphere. Move away, changing your point of view, and you see more. You never see the top, of course. Cannon ball, Moon – same gravity, same laws.
Additionally, the elliptical orbit of Moon is caused by the Moon speeding up and slowing down. Gravity again.Depending on the relative positions of the Moon, and an Earth bound observer, more or less of the Moons surface may be observed. Dont forget to take into account the various precessions involved.
You say it is simple to accurately explain libration. I say it is not.
You say the Moon rotates with respect to its axis. I say it does not.
Others can make up their own minds. It makes precisely no practical difference to anyone, as far as I can tell, anyway. Much ado about nothing?
Swensonny,
You want to compare expense accounts?
I got a nice gig, they even give me a computer and let me argue with trolls.
Three day work week and I only work every other week on average.
Swenson,
Actually there are four types of libration.
You claim
“You say it is simple to accurately explain libration. I say it is not.
You say the Moon rotates with respect to its axis. I say it does not.
Others can make up their own minds. It makes precisely no practical difference to anyone, as far as I can tell, anyway. Much ado about nothing?”
I could explain the four, count them four, types of libration, but I would guess that you would not understand, as you do not understand that the Moon spins.
It’s all about getting the science correct.
You would prefer to do that?
bob,
You have a part time job.
Good for you! You dont have enough to keep you occupied. Wasting your employers time.
Well done.
bob,
I just said even Wikipedia acknowledges 3 types of libration. Tim thinks it is simple. I dont. Are you disagreeing with me?
As to expense accounts, drones have them. They justify them to people like me. Why would I need an expense account?
Tim, you just keep on obfuscating. I already directed you, further up-thread, to these comments from ftop_t, beginning here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-582080
Will you finally acknowledge their existence? We’ll see.
Other than that, I would point out that there are actually two discussions on this blog relating to this. The first one is, “does the moon rotate on its own axis?”, but the second one is, “does the ball on a string etc. rotate on its own axis?”
The latter is argued almost as much as the former, even though there are people who go with the mainstream on the former but who agree with the “Non-Spinners” on the latter. It would be helpful if you could answer the second question for us. Does the ball on a string rotate on its own axis?
The correct answer is “no”, but we’ll see if you can be honest and direct.
Swenny
“I just said even Wikipedia acknowledges 3 types of libration. Tim thinks it is simple. I dont. Are you disagreeing with me?
As to expense accounts, drones have them. They justify them to people like me. Why would I need an expense account?”
Yeah, I disagree with you, generally you are disagreeable. There are four types of libration, you don’t even seem to understand the three types from Wikipedia, I can’t dumb it down for you.
You don’t think it’s simple, all that means is that the science is above your training level.
I do have a full time job, never said I didn’t, you wouldn’t understand what I do, it’s above your level of scientific understanding.
This is perhaps the most telling comment in the whole thread:
“I am aware that the conventional view disagrees, and not remotely bothered.”
Every scientist since Newton has woven a vast, intertwined set of theories about mechanics, confirmed by innumerable experiments. All conclude that the moon is rotating.
DREMT feels that his personal opinion and authority ought to take precedence over experimentally confirmed theories.
(And yes, I get that some “conventional wisdom” in science does sometimes change. Things like the cause of ulcers or plate tectonics or relativity. But there is a difference. There was no vast, intertwined set of experimentally-confirmed theories about stationary continents or objects moving at 0.99c, confirmed by innumerable experiments.)
So Tim won’t acknowledge the existence of ftop_t’s comments and he won’t answer a simple question. That’s “telling”.
First it was Tesla. Then Wikipedia. And now FTOP have become DREMTs ultimate AUTHORITY.
BE careful who you choose to represent your arguments.
FTOP was confused about rotating reference frames. He proved that in a rotating reference frame an object like the Moon is not rotating on its axis, thus proving that in the inertial frame it IS rotating on its axis.
DREMT, I don’t have time to analyze every post. This ftop person goes into considerable detail, but also makes some serious errors. Here are a couple quick points.
Their discussion relates to the center of the ellipse, not a focus. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how orbits actually work. They also have the moon orbiting at a constant angular speed around their (wrong) origin — a second large mistake.
“As proven earlier, if an object is rotating on its internal axis and also rotating on an external axis, all sides of the object will point to the external axis point.”
And that is the point. The object is not “rotating on an external axis” because that, indeed, cannot work. If nothing else, by definition a “rotation” would lead to a circular path, which is not the case. So there is one reason to reject “rotating on an external axis”
Instead, an orbit can be more easily understood as the path of a point (with no orientation). The orientation would then be a separate, actual rotation on an axis through that point with a fixed orientation relative to the stars. It would be relatively easy to make a similar demo using this model that would simulate the actual motions.
And again, all of this has been known for 100’s of years. A faulty simulation doesn’t overturn 100’s of years of science.
“Their discussion relates to the center of the ellipse, not a focus. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how orbits actually work.”
It had been argued that an object rotating about an external axis could only lead to a circular path. Ftop_t’s Desmos work shows that a rotation about an external axis can lead to an elliptical path. That’s all it needed to show. Hence not having the object being orbited at one focus of the ellipse is not a valid criticism of what he was trying to demonstrate.
“They also have the moon orbiting at a constant angular speed around their (wrong) origin — a second large mistake.”
Again, not what the demonstration needed to show, so not a valid criticism.
“The object is not “rotating on an external axis” because that, indeed, cannot work. If nothing else, by definition a “rotation” would lead to a circular path, which is not the case. So there is one reason to reject “rotating on an external axis””
Tim, the object is rotating about an external axis, and it follows an elliptical path. That is the entire point of the demonstration.
Now, you still have a question to answer, re the ball on a string…
“Ftop_t’s Desmos work shows that a rotation about an external axis can lead to an elliptical path. That’s all it needed to show.”
Uhhh, No. Both of you are confused.
A computer program cannot override fundamental mathematical definitions.
“A rotation is a circular movement of an object around a center (or point) of rotation. The geometric plane along which the rotation occurs is called the rotation plane, and the imaginary line extending from the center and perpendicular to the rotation plane is called the rotation axis.”
“In mathematics, an ellipse is a plane curve surrounding two focal points, such that for all points on the curve, the sum of the two distances to the focal points is a constant.”
This is an egregious use of math and computers to obfuscate.
I talk about observing a spinning baseball, to illustrate that we can see it spinning without sitting on its origin, as DREMT claimed.
Swenson says its a pointless analogy, but brings up a non-spinning cannonball analogy, and, quite strangely, declares that the Moon should behave just like it!
The Moon: “it spins no more than a cannonball falling towards the Earth.”
“Nate, the Moon just falls towards the Earth”
Yes, AND it spins as it does.
“As Newton pointed out, from the point of view of distant stars, the Moon seems to spin on its axis.”
As confirmed by Newton! Thanks!
While we wait for Tim to answer the question, we might as well take a look at this animation:
https://postimg.cc/SJLTGNMS
As you can see, in example B, the moon is moving (roughly) like our moon. In the little box on the left, the moon appears to be rotating on its own axis. The view in this little box represents the frame of reference where the origin is in the center of mass of the moon and the Cartesian axes remain pointing towards some fixed star.
But, if you “zoom out” your frame of reference so that the origin is in the center of the orbit and the Cartesian axes remain pointing towards some fixed star, you get the full view of the orbit represented by the gif to the right of the little box. From this viewpoint, you can see that the moon is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about its own center of mass.
“Ftop_t’s Desmos work shows that a rotation about an external axis can lead to an elliptical path.”
No, that truly is NOT a “rotation”. I mean you can create an ellipse with some weird epicycles — rotations on rotations, but his ellipse is varying radius, so, by definition, it is not a rotation.
“we might as well take a look at this animation:”
Again, you present one description. I could present another. Like put that image of a moon on the platter of an old-fashioned record player and turn in on. The moon is rotating on its own axis. Now — always holding the record player with one side facing north — I could walk around. Whether I walk N or S or E or W, everyone agrees it is still rotating on its own axis. Or I could walk NE. Or in a zig-zag. Or in a circle. The moon is rotating on its own axis the whole time because the record player is turned on and turning.
Even if I am walking in a circle with the same period as the rotation of the record player, the platter of the record player is turning. And this recreates your “Diagram B” perfectly.
“…but his ellipse is varying radius, so, by definition, it is not a rotation”
Tim, you’re in denial. You can actually expand on the “orbital paths” section and look at the math if you like.
“Even if I am walking in a circle with the same period as the rotation of the record player, the platter of the record player is turning. And this recreates your “Diagram B” perfectly.”
I was making a specific point with “Diagram B”, relating to frames of reference. Same point as I was making to Entropic Man a little earlier. Far from it being the case that in the majority of frames of reference the moon is rotating on its own axis, there is actually only the one specific reference frame in which the moon appears to be rotating on its own axis (represented by the little box on the left). From all others you can see that the moon is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass. You have missed that point and tried to once again reiterate that what is a pure rotation can also be described as a translation of the center of mass plus a rotation about that center of mass (general plane motion).
As I pointed out to you up-thread, general plane motion only applies when the movement is not a pure rotation or a pure translation. But as we already know from the Wikipedia entry on rotation and other links I have made in the past, an orbit is just a pure rotation about an external axis. That’s why “revolution” is synonymous with “rotation”.
“From all others you can see that the moon is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass.”
Then you are retracting what you have already readily agreed to:
That the motion of even this pretend Moon in a circular orbit CAN BE described as a combination of translation of CM on a circular path, plus Rotation around CM.
This is actually TRUE. It can be equally well described EITHER WAY and the motion is IDENTICAL.
So how is it that you can return to the very tired meme that the Moon is definitely NOT doing the COMBO motion, when it clearly can be described that way.
Furthermore, once you have the real Moon travelling on an elliptical path, then the COMBO description becomes the ONLY viable one according to YOUR TEXTBOOK. It becomes a GENERAL PLANE MOTION.
FTOP relies on math. Math is precise. It has strict definitions. An ellipse is not a circular path, thus NOT a ROTATION.
If an ellipse can be described as a ROTATION then any weird closed curved could also be. Then Geometric precision is all tossed in the bin!
“Tim, you’re in denial. You can actually expand on the “orbital paths” section and look at the math if you like.”
…and you can expand the “rotating points” section, too.
“Look at the math if you like.”
We have already seen how ftop used ok math but still got confused over rotating reference frames, and his ‘proof’ fell apart.
How bout u look and explain to us how his ‘math’ can override geometric definitions?
This is the poster child for using ‘math’ to obfuscate.
I note that Tim did not answer my question.
This is getting redundant, but maybe one more response.
SWENSON: “The moon does not physically wiggle side to side, or up and down.”
Yes! The perception of a wiggle is because the moon rotates on its own axis at a fixed rate, but orbits around the earth at a variable rate.
As to the Moon appearing to rotate with respect to distant stars, once again, this is perception.
No. Rotations are absolute. In rotating frames, “fictious forces” appear (like centrifugal force or the Coriois force). We truly do know the earth rotates because of things like Foucault Pendulums and hurricanes.
“The Moon continuously falls towards the Earth. Just like a cannon ball. Directly beneath it, you see one hemisphere.”
Well sort of. There are several complications and details that would need to be discusses. For example, since the earth rotates, the fictious coriolis force will make objects not fall “straight down” but land east of where they are dropped. So for a tall enough tower, a cannon ball dropped from *straight* above you would actually pass beside you as it falls, so you *would* see one side and the top as it went by.
So we could assume a non-rotating earth to simplify a few things. (and assume no air, too).
For a non-rotating earth and a non-rotating cannonball, then the same side of the cannon ball would always face the same direction with respect to the stars and with respect to the earth if you drop it from a tall tower. Exactly as you conclude. The same is true if you push the cannon ball side ways off the tower. It won’t start spinning as it falls.
Let me repeat that. A cannon ball pushed sideways off the top of a tall tower with no rotation with respect to the stars will continue to move with no rotation with respect to the stars — that is conservation of angular momentum. There is no external torque acting on the cannon ball to cause an angular acceleration.
A fast enough push would put that cannon ball into orbit — while maintaining the same orientation with respect to the stars. That “non-rotating” object will present every side to the earth as it orbits. The cannon ball would have to be launched forward AND launched with a small rotation to keep the same face to the earth.
“You say it is simple to accurately explain libration. I say it is not.
As with “beauty”, “simplicity” is in the eye of the beholder. I consider all three types of lunar libration “simple” but that is because I have a lot of practice with math and physics and teaching. (Like a ballet dancer might consider a pirouette “simple” or a dentist might consider filling a cavity “simple”.) I could sit down and draw pictures to illustrate all three types.
“You say the Moon rotates with respect to its axis. I say it does not.
But this is not a matter of opinion. Either a Foucalt pendulum will change orientation on the moon or it won’t. Either a cannon ball dropped from a tall tower will veer slightly toward the east or it won’t. There are many basic physical phenomena that are different in rotating and non-rotating frames.
Spoiler alert — these sorts of phenomena will show that the moon is indeed rotating.
You can tell TF is really getting desperate. None of his tricks are working. Reality is stalking him like a hungry grizzly bear.
“Yes! The perception of a wiggle is because the moon rotates on its own axis at a fixed rate, but orbits around the earth at a variable rate.”
The moon changes its orientation at a fixed rate, but orbits around the Earth at a variable rate. It does not rotate on its own axis.
“No. Rotations are absolute.”
Exactly, Tim. Rotations are absolute. It is absolute that the moon is rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, and not about its own center of mass.
“A fast enough push would put that cannon ball into orbit — while maintaining the same orientation with respect to the stars. That “non-rotating” object will present every side to the earth as it orbits. The cannon ball would have to be launched forward AND launched with a small rotation to keep the same face to the earth.”
An airplane circumnavigates the globe with the same side of the plane constantly facing towards the Earth. It does not need to rotate on its own axis in order to do so.
“But this is not a matter of opinion. Either a Foucalt pendulum will change orientation on the moon or it won’t.”
A Foucault pendulum responds to changes in orientation. The moon changes its orientation because it is rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, and not about its own center of mass.
“An airplane circumnavigates the globe with the same side of the plane constantly facing towards the Earth. It does not need to rotate on its own axis in order to do so.”
Yes, A plane does rotate once when it flies around the globe. But that is you trying to avoid the actual question being asked.
If a cannon ball is dropped with no rotation relative to the fixed stars, will it change orientation as it falls?
Will your answer change if there is an initial vertical velocity? What about horizontal? If your answer changes, what physical external torque is causing an angular acceleration to change the orientation in some cases but not others?
“Yes, A plane does rotate once when it flies around the globe. But that is you trying to avoid the actual question being asked.”
No, a plane does not rotate on its own axis once when it flies around the globe. And you hadn’t asked a question, Tim.
Re: Lunar librations
I think that like me, bobdroege will prefer explanations of even tiny scientific details to be given as exact as is possible.
We should therefore firstly divide the lunar librations in two categories:
– those who are optical, apparent effects;
– those who are physical effects, of real nature; they are oscillations, irregularities detected within the lunar spin.
While the optical, apparent librations in turn are
– longitudinal
– latitudinal
or
– diurnal,
the physical librations are, according to e.g. Odile Calamé’s evaluations of Lunar Laser Ranging data,
– forced (induced by Earth’s motion within Moon’s gravitational field)
or
– free or Eulerian (induced by e.g. meteoritic impacts).
Physical librations were first discovered by Lagrange as a consequence of the differential equations of the lunar motion.
But these equations only predicted their existence, and did not tell anything qualitative or quantitative about them.
Habibullin, Koziel and Echhardt performed first evaluations, with however huge error bars.
Calamé was the first person who evaluated LLR data, and hence was able to give results with sufficient precision. She detected three different ‘free’ oscillations.
Source
Free librations of the moon determined by an analysis of laser range measurements
Odile Calamé (1976)
https://tinyurl.com/p5w6aegd
J.-P. D.
…but more importantly, if you think about a small chalk circle that you draw towards the outside edge of a rotating platform, that chalk circle is rotating about an axis in the center of the platform, and not on its own axis, regardless of reference frame. As I know Bindidon would agree (because he has already said he does).
What does your stupid, trivial, irrelevant stuff have to do with what I wrote?
Go, play somewhere else with your baby toys, and leave me in peace.
Well, since what you wrote had nothing to do with whether the moon rotates on its own axis or not, I thought I would respond with something more relevant.
DREMT
Of course it has!
Simply because you can’t detect physical librations without having evaluated moon’s spin about its axis.
But because you deny moon’s spin by restricting the discussion to trivial examples and a quick shot made by Tesla, you of course will consequently ignore all what I write.
The world of Pseudoskepticism is wonderful.
Weiter so, DREMT.
J.-P. D.
“you can’t detect physical librations without having evaluated moon’s spin about its axis”
…and what you think of as moon’s spin about its axis is actually just the moon changing its orientation because it is rotating (“orbiting”) about the Earth, and not about its own center of mass. Just like the chalk circle.
Librations there be four,
One because the Earth spins.
Two because the Moon’s orbit is elliptical.
Three because the orbit of the Moon is tilted with respect to the rotation of the Earth.
Four because the axis the Earth spins around and the axis the Moon spins are not parallel.
Try and explain it any other way.
And no, the Moon doesn’t rotate like a ball on a string.
OK, blob. Agree to disagree.
Except what you are saying is that 2+2=6, and you are disagreeing with me saying 2+2=4+/-1!
It’s not like we are discussing what we want on our pizza, it’s basic scientific facts and your opinion that the Moon is not rotating means nothing.
Agree to disagree.
Another meaningless statement from DREMT, that’s all we get.
OK, blob.
* The 1,500 real-time stations that we rely on today are in locations where NOAA scientists can access information on the 8th of each month. *
Accessing on the 8th gives a full working week for late arriving data from the previous month to be collected and collated. Sounds a sensible compromise between speed and accuracy.
For similar reasons GISS publish monthly averages on the third Thursday of the following month.
‘Aidan concluded: In recent years, meteorologists have become more aware of the many different influences on the UKs winter weather from the stratospheric polar vortex to rainfall patterns in the tropics. Some influences, such as La Nia, can be identified well ahead of the start of winter. Others, such as the MJO, operate on much shorter timescales. Add into the mix the inherent chaos of the weather and youve got all the ingredients for a particularly challenging forecast.’
https://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/2021/02/05/multiple-drivers-creates-challenges-for-forecasting-weather-direction/
‘Overnight temperatures will be notably low through the week, especially in areas with lying snow. We can expect to see -10C as far south as East Anglia later in the week. Daytime temperatures will also be cold, only reaching 1 or 2 degrees Celsius for many early in the week. With strong winds as well the wind chill will make it feel much colder.’
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/about-us/press-office/news/weather-and-climate/2021/cold-and-snowy-week-ahead
Thanks to Scott Rose
‘A mass of cold air arrived on Sunday, setting new daily temperature records in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
According to Environment Canada, 22 cold-weather records were broken throughout the three provinces.
The coldest temperature was recorded in Uranium City, Sask., where it was –48.9 C, breaking a previous record of –40 C set in 2019.
In Alberta, the lowest temperature was recorded in Fort Chipewyan where it was –47.3 C, breaking the previous record of –45.6 C set in 1936.
Edmonton International Airport was close to breaking a daily record. The temperature reached a low of –43.8 C, with the previous record set on the same day in 1994 at –43.9 C.
In Manitoba, the temperature was a bit higher — but not by much. The community of Roblin set a new record of –42 C, breaking the previous record of –40.6 set in 1972.’
https://www.msn.com/en-ca/weather/topstories/polar-vortex-brings-in-6-record-breaking-temperatures-to-sask-bitter-cold-here-to-stay/ar-BB1duXl0?fbclid=IwAR0ini1ZZFSt8e57y7iK48I1wC1sgvWk6360uWO4RDoOaAfrWBsX7nS7r0M
A good article showing what happens
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/sudden-stratospheric-warming-and-polar-vortex-early-2021
Polar vortexes due to stratospheric sudden warming happen many times per decade, look at UAH6.0 LS, here above the oceans 60N-82.5N:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13RYnClWzG5MVV0aDSRV37EthTk2g_aKt/view
In the South Pole area, it’s even worse.
J.-P. D.
The Sun makes a mockery of any forecast.
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png
The warming is called a “Minor Warming”, when the polar temperature increases more than 25 degrees in a period of a week or less at any stratospheric level. If the zonal mean temperature increases poleward from 60 degrees latitude and the net zonal mean zonal winds become easterly at 60 degrees latitude at 10 hPa (32 km) or below, it is classified as a “Major Warming”.
Bindidon, the strongest SSWs occur during times of reduced solar activity.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/clisys/STRAT/readme.html
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_UGRD_ANOM_ALL_NH_2009.gif
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_UGRD_ANOM_ALL_NH_2019.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_UGRD_ANOM_JFM_NH_2021.png
ren
” … the strongest SSWs occur during times of reduced solar activity. ”
Where do you have that from, ren? Certainly not from JMA’s explanations in their readme file, as there is not one reference to solar matters in it.
*
I didn’t search for this article:
” Die explosionsartigen Stratosphärenerwärmungen des Spätwinters 1951/52. In: Berichte des Deutschen Wetterdienstes in der US-Zone. Band 38, 1952, S. 51–63. ”
But it should be evident to you that 1951 was 6 years before the Modern Solar Maximum – which occurred in 1957, as you easily can see here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12HtQq7eVIaJ4zn182I6Kzs5fhxxvZzT7/view
Thus, what you wrote above is imho questionable.
J.-P. D.
We can only compare stratospheric parameters since 1979. The strongest SSW occurred in 2009 and 2021. These are years with extremely low solar wind activity and the first year of the new solar cycle (slow increase in solar wind magnetic field strength).
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_UGRD_ANOM_ALL_NH_2010.gif
The NCEP GDAS and CPC temperature and height analyses are used to monitor processes in the Stratosphere and Troposphere. In the table below are zonal mean time series of Temperature, Zonal Wind Component, Normalized Geopotential Height anomalies, amplitude of the height field’s Wave 1, Wave 2, and Wave 3.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/
With your answers, you confirm the fact that writing
” … the strongest SSWs occur during times of reduced solar activity. ”
is simply nonsense: the extreme SSW in 1951/52 happened exactly in such a period.
ren
Apos, I wrote exactly the contrary of what I wanted to express.
The 1951/52 SSW event confirms what is observed since 1979.
Bindidon, most rivers in Germany could freeze over the next two weeks.
https://i.ibb.co/8zPV7Jq/Screenshot-1.png
Yeah. And at the same time, day & night temperatures in Switzerland currently are far far above average:
https://tinyurl.com/5epa45qt
https://tinyurl.com/186xmsfk
(Jungfraujoch and Corvatsch are above 3000 m)
For the same reason, parts of France were suddenly covered with Sahara sand a few days ago.
Here is cold, there is warm, c’est la vie.
Binny,
This is why averages are pointless.
There will always be temperatures above and below the average. Extremes of both can occur, without changing the average. The extremes can kill.
By the way, how long do you think your warming trend will last? At 0.6 C per decade, if the trend lasts for 10,000 years (a moment in geological terms), the average will have risen by 600 C, with extremes beyond that. Unlikely, would you agree?
When do you think the trend will stop, and more importantly, why?
Feel free to avoid answering. I wouldnt blame you. Maybe you could try making pointless threats. That might divert attention away from your incompetence.
Flynn
Whether or not your current nickname is Swenson is irrelevant: your language and your permanent ankle biting are perfectly similar to what you wrote here years ago.
*
If there is, apart from Robertson, another pretentious Contrarian perfectly showing his own, thorough incompetence, then that’s you.
I can’t recall even one only comment of you that could have been interpreted as a positive contribution to anything discussed here.
All you are able to is to discredit, denigrate other persons, all the time, like little dogs barking, and barking, and barking behind everybody.
J.-P. D.
BTW, this is how you know Global Temperatures are overstated:
Both of these Sites are included in the Global Composite, yet clearly, one has warming due to the UHI Effect.
La Estanzuela Eele (34.45S, 57.85W) ID:UY000086562 https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=UY000086562&ds=14&dt=1
Buenos Aires Observ (34.583S, 58.483W) ID:AR000875850 https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=AR000875850&ds=14&dt=1
Here is another example:
Honolulu Intl Ap (21.3239N, 157.9294W) ID:USW00022521 https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=USW00022521&dt=1&ds=15
Waialua 847 (21.5750N, 158.1203W) ID:USC00519195
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=USC00519195&ds=15&dt=1
Someone needs to create a composite using only sites that clearly aren’t impacted by the UHI and Water Vapor.
The Hockeystick show global warming of over 1 Degree C since 1902. I challenge anyone to find a controlled site that shows that kind of warming. They simply don’t exist. It is hard to find a site that shows over 1 degree of warming since 1902.
I was able to attach the links to the sites on this post. 175 Stations that show no warming that can be tied to CO2.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/02/06/the-problem-with-climate-models/#comment-3178323
Before we go through this exercise with you I want to make sure you understand what conclusions we can draw from the global mean temperature trend. This is going to be important when you try to match up various station records with the global mean temperature. Study this graph.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.png
How much warming took place between 1880 and 1979?
How much warming took place from 1979 to 2020?
b,
You are no doubt going to find a warming trend. I have a question which nobody seems to want to answer.
When will this trend stop, or is it expected to continue forever?
Does your mythical GHE suddenly cease to be, or do the physics of CO2 change at some point in the future?
Maybe not being able to define the GHE is a wonderful thing! Nobody can prove you wrong, if you refuse to tell them them what it is you are claiming.
Heat makes things warmer. Remove the heat, they get cold again.
Does this readily observed fact fit into your non-existent GHE definition?
Ho ho ho.
bdgwx, the chart you referenced show a global warming, meaning an average, meaning that there are sits that show warming above what your chart demonstrates.
Your chart show approx a 1.5 Degree C increase since 1910. That is absurd. You will have trouble finding any sites, uncorrupted by the UHI and Water Vapor that shows that much warming, especially at a continually increasing trend. I posted 175 sites that even if you claim show warming, certainly do not show a nice continual increase in temperatures. Your chart simply shows a wish list for people that want to believe in warming. Once again, how can CO2 be the cause if I can show you 175 stations that are flat as a board and show on a gradual uptrend in temperatures?
Both of these Sites are included in the Global Composite, yet clearly, one has warming due to the UHI Effect.
La Estanzuela Eele (34.45S, 57.85W) ID:UY000086562 https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=UY000086562&ds=14&dt=1
Buenos Aires Observ (34.583S, 58.483W) ID:AR000875850 https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=AR000875850&ds=14&dt=1
Here is another example:
Honolulu Intl Ap (21.3239N, 157.9294W) ID:USW00022521 https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=USW00022521&dt=1&ds=15
Waialua 847 (21.5750N, 158.1203W) ID:USC00519195
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=USC00519195&ds=15&dt=1
CO2isLife said: the chart you referenced show a global warming, meaning an average, meaning that there are sits that show warming above what your chart demonstrates.
Yeah, so, the warming from 1880-1979 is only 0.3C. That’s it. But the warming from 1979-2020 is about 0.8C. That means the bulk of the 1.1C rise in temperature occurred later in the instrumental temperature record. My point is that I think you’re trying to find warming in the early part of the record where not much warming is claimed to be. It is the difference between +0.03C/decade for the first 100 years and +0.19C/decade for the last 40 years. Furthermore, the bulk of this warming occurred during an era where urbanization rates and thus the UHI effect had already peaked. In fact, according to Berkeley Earth the UHI effect is more likely to cause a cooling bias than a warming bias on the global mean temperature during this period (see https://tinyurl.com/t4fhk101). Make sure you calibrate your expectations accordingly.
Anyway, the challenge is to find sites that show at least 1C of warming or a higher amount of warming than the global mean. Here are several sites with low BI from all over the world both NH and SH.
Verhojansk ID:RSM00024266 with BI of 0
1885-2020: 2.83C +/- 0.32
1979-2020: 2.59C +/- 0.50
Fort Simpson ID:CA002202115 with BI of 0
1897-2020: 3.25C +/- 0.35
1979-2020: 1.56C +/- 0.54
Eureka ID:CA002401200 with BI of 0
1979-2020: 3.45C +/- 0.53
Cape Leeuwin ID:ASN00009518 with BI of 0
1897-2020: 1.19C +/- 0.11
1979-2020: 0.89C +/- 0.18
Christchurch Intl ID:NZM00093780 with BI of 14
1905-2020: 1.15C +/- 0.14
1979-2020: 0.77C +/- 0.23
Base Orcadas ID:AYM00088968 with BI of 0
1903-2020: 2.11C +/- 0.30
1979-2020: 0.55C +/- 0.78 (not statistically significant)
Vostok ID:AYM00089606 with BI of 0
1979-2020: 1.29C +/- 0.55
CO2isLife said: I posted 175 sites that even if you claim show warming
Many of them did…yes.
CO2isLife said: certainly do not show a nice continual increase in temperatures.
No disrespect here, but duh!
CO2isLife said: Your chart simply shows a wish list for people that want to believe in warming.
First…its not my chart. It is from GISTEMP.
Second…what it shows is the global mean temperature over time as produced by running all 27,000+ stations from the GHCN-M inventory and the individual measurements from ERSST through the GISTEMP code. It has nothing to do with a belief system.
CO2isLife said: Once again, how can CO2 be the cause if I can show you 175 stations that are flat as a board and show on a gradual uptrend in temperatures?
There is clearly some kind of breakdown in your understanding 1) what the supported and rejected hypothesis even are or 2) of all of the other factors that go into the modulation of temperatures on all spatial and temporal scales.
Let’s see if we can you past this hurdle. Forget about CO2 for a moment. Assume it is static and not a factor. What other factors can you think of that might modulate temperatures? Let’s start with narrow spatial and temporal scales…say…one site for one day. What factors determine the temperature on that scale?
I am curious about what constitutes “clear” UHI effects to you. For example, it looks like about 1C of urban effects was removed from Buenos Aires, but there is still about 1 C of warming. Urban warming was similarly removed for Honolulu, again leaving a clear upward trend. Why is it “clear” to you that they didn’t remove enough urban heating effects?
Tim,
Maybe you can answer a simple question.
If you claim there is a warming trend, when do you expect it to stop? Why?
Even 0.1 C per decade is 1 C per century, 100 C in 10,000 years, or 10,000 C in a million years (a relatively short time, in geological terms).
Seems a bit silly to me, but I have never seen a testable definition of the GHE.
You really have no idea, have you? Feel free to surprise me.
“If you claim there is a warming trend, when do you expect it to stop? Why?”
1) I was replying to CO2. You are welcome to join the conversation, but your comment has nothing to do with my question to CO2. He was claiming a “clear” indication of urban effects, ven beyond the effects removed already. I made no claims — asked for clarification.
2) There there HAS been a warming trend. The data is very clear. You can see some of that data at the top of this page. Why do you question the very existence of warming in the past few decades or past few centuries? It’s tough to have a meaningful conversation with someone who questions basic, well-established facts.
3) The warming of the lower atmosphere stops when an energy balance is achieved for the lower atmosphere. There are many factors involved (incoming sunlight, cloud cover, ocean currents, GHGs, and land use to name a few), and the future of such factors cannot be predicted, so there is no simple answer like “the warming stops in 37 years.
I can say that outgoing radiation provides a strong negative feedback. Consequently, the temperature will never take the absurd trends you suggest of 100C warming.
4) The “Greenhouse Effect” is not something that can be fully explained by one equation or one sentence. It involves many interconnected concepts — like thermal IR, emissivity, lapse rate, and the quantum mechanics of vibrating molecules. If you understand these concepts, then you should be able to easily grasp the crux of the greenhouse effect. It is explained many places and at many different levels. I am sure you can find them if you care to look.
TF claims: The “Greenhouse Effect” is not something that can be fully explained by one equation or one sentence.
They’re in full retreat. Now the bogus GHE is “hard to explain”. It can’t even be seen!
The rats are leaving the sinking ship.
Tim,
From your somewhat evasive answer, I gather that you claim the warming trend will stop, and warming will never reach 100 C. Of course, and as usual, you cant really say why, but it somehow has something to do with lots of things including the mythical energy balance,
You claim 100 C rise would be absurd. I agree. What about 10 C? Physically justified? If so, wouldnt the same calculations produce a limiting temperature?
You seem pretty good with equations. What is the equation you used to say 100 C is absurd? Doesnt it work for 10 C?
I think you are making things up as you go!
As to the GHE, yes, I do understand the things you mentioned, better than you do, and quite a lot more, which you seem to be totally unaware of.
Still no GHE (or even the crux thereof). I didnt ask for an explanation, though. Just a simple, useful, definition (or description, if you prefer). Most scientific effects are usefully described in a few sentences. Even Newtons Law Universal of Gravitation is expressed in one sentence.
Give it up, Tim.
Swenson,
Energy balance is not “mythical”. Conservation of energy is a key principle in science. When more energy enters the top of the atmosphere than leaves the top of the atmosphere, the atmosphere must warm.
My sense that 100 C is “absurd” comes from three lines of reasoning.
1) The Stefan-Boltzmann Law. Radiation increases as T^4. Increasing the surface temperature by 10% (eg by about 25-30 K) would produce a 45% increase in radiation from the surface. (Its not quite that simple, but the feedback is very strong as temperatures rise.)
2) Models. Even the most aggressive projections for warming in the next century are 5C. There are diminishing returns from more CO2 in the air, so future centuries will probably be no more than 5C/Century — quite possibly less.
3) History. Even in the warmest eras in earth’s history, temperatures are estimated to only be on the order of 10 C warmer than now.
“Even Newtons Law Universal of Gravitation is expressed in one sentence.”
Yes, because that is a “simple” Law. F = Gm1m2/r^2.
The “greenhouse effect” is much more complex.
If all you want is “a simple, useful, definition” of the greenhouse effect, then look in pretty much any online source. They are say something to the effect of “a warming of Earth’s surface and troposphere caused by the presence of IR active gasses like water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane.” Sometimes the definition focuses on the *process* that causes the warming, rather than the *amount* of warming.
Swennson,
“Seems a bit silly to me, but I have never seen a testable definition of the GHE.”
Yes you have, I have shown you one, and you agreed it was a testable hypothesis.
Now you are just lying.
“If you claim there is a warming trend, when do you expect it to stop? Why?”
You really don’t understand this? It’s quite simple really. One factor goes up with the fourth power and one goes up with the logarithm.
I’ll just put you down as a stupid liar.
Bindidon, at your request there will be more snow in Berlin today and tomorrow.
ren
Hey are you kidding me?
Never did I request for any snow.
Of that stuff I had in Feb 1956, Jan 1963, Feb 1987 enough for the rest of my life.
J.-P. D.
Strong highs in Canada and the US Midwest.
http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/namer/mimictpw_namer_latest.gif
Visible stratospheric intrusion in the Midwest.
https://i.ibb.co/hHD81HV/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f024.png
Forecast of temperature anomalies on 2-meters in North America for February 19.
https://i.ibb.co/p2dSWBg/gfs-T2ma-namer-41.png
Some thought that the recent strong increase in solar flux of 10.7 cm , heralded an increase in solar activity. How wrong they were.
https://www.spaceweather.gc.ca/auto_generated_products/solradmon_eng.png
ren
And? What about your genial explanation for the right part of the curve?
Don’t you know what exactly is F10.7 ?
Oh Noes.
J.-P. D.
‘The solar radio flux at 10.7 cm (2800 MHz) is an excellent indicator of solar activity. Often called the F10.7 index, it is one of the longest running records of solar activity. The F10.7 radio emissions originates high in the chromosphere and low in the corona of the solar atmosphere. The F10.7 correlates well with the sunspot number as well as a number of UltraViolet (UV) and visible solar irradiance records.’
There is high agreement of F 10.5 with UV measurements.
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png
There is high agreement of F 10.7 with UV measurements.
The F10.7 correlates well with the sunspot number
https://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/hmi_igr/1024/latest.jpg
ren
As I asked
” Dont you know what exactly is F10.7 ? ”
I didn’t mean it as an invitation to teach us all about it. I just wanted to know if you were aware of it, because of your strange comment above:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/#comment-611503
And yes:
” The F10.7 correlates well with the sunspot number. ”
Look here on a chart I made in 2018:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ShXgzae4Fr_fOs9kWJiSzD8yXkcewQZY/view
J.-P. D.
REN they are all biased guesses and the same can be said about their climate predictions.
I can not wait for the down turn which is coming but they will still cling to AGW.
Salvatore, La Nina is now developing in waves. Global temperatures will be dropping.
https://i.ibb.co/H4grGTX/Screenshot-1.png
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
Yes but however it will take allot to get rid of the scam of AGW.
There are two theories of government, the conspiracy theory and the cockup theory.
If AGW is a scam it would require a coordinated conspiracy involving 190 governments and pretty well every physicist, biologist, oceonographer, Earth scientist and astronomer on the planet. Include most of the journals, the mainstream media and every green industry on the planet. Untold millions of people over more than thirty years.
About the only people you could confidently exclude from the conspiracy are the fossil fuel companies.
As a cockup theorist myself I find it difficult to believe that our usually incompetent politicians could maintain a conspiracy of that complexity and sophistication over that length of time.
Easier to believe in AGW.
E,
No scam necessary. Just another example of popular delusions and the madness of crowds.
History is littered with them.
This too will pass,
–Entropic man says:
February 9, 2021 at 2:43 PM
There are two theories of government, the conspiracy theory and the cockup theory.–
Well, conspiracy requires intelligence, and to cockup, you have be doing something right, first.
Governments are bureaucracy. The rules governing bureaucracies, are
same rules of government.
Twitter is lesson of government. One will see conspiracies and huge cockup on twitter, but what is dominate factor is the mindless idiocy.
I really wish all of the armchair “climatologists” would take their off-topic distractions elsewhere. Out of the 840+ posts on this thread alone, about a dozen are relevant to the original post. I recommend you all get your own blog on WordPress or the like, so we don’t need to wade through the cruft on these posts.
Wiz Greek no one cares what you think.
You can see his point. Without all the annoying warmists this would be a nice quiet and moribund echo chamber like Bishop Hill.
WizGeek
” I recommend you all get your own blog on WordPress or the like… ”
This is not the first time you come here along with your request.
Please feel free to follow yourself your own recommendation.
J.-P. D.
I WOULD SAY REN, ENTRPICMAN, BDGX, BINDIDON to name some are as knowledgeable as any one in the area of climate agree or not with them.
Salvatore
Grazie molto / Thank you very much for your honesty.
Our opinions about lots of things discussed here indeed may differ; but we two respect the other’s opinion, and that shall remain as it is.
J.-P. D.
I forgot CO2 is life.
Does anyone know what the ‘ideal’ concentrations of Carbon Dioxide should be?
I’m finding one source suggesting plants like it 800 to 1000 ppm and therefore emissions agreements between nations should be to attain and maintain it at that level.
What are you wanting to optimize for exactly? If biomass growth do we optimize for C3 or C4 growth? Do we optimize for crop yields or something different? And should we assume all other factors (soil chemistry, precipitation, temperature, sunshine, etc.) should remain constant?
What I want to optimize for exactly is continued access to cheap reliable energy from fossil fuels without carbon taxes added on to the price.
Right now the alarmism is about Carbon Dioxide levels rising about 100 ppm in 50 years. However, nowhere is it stated what Carbon Dioxide levels should be even as geological data shows it was much higher than it is now and life flourished.
How does 800-1000 ppm create ideal conditions to sustain access to cheap reliable energy from fossil fuels without carbon taxes added on the price?
800 – 1000 ppm as the ‘ideal’ would mean no more Paris Agreement to reduce CO2 emissions. Hence no more carbon taxes.
It should also come with the knowledge that Carbon Dioxide doesn’t cause a climate crisis and nowhere near as much warming as advertised by the alarmist end of the spectrum.
Instead we would be recognizing that our eco-system is on the verges of carbon dioxide starvation (plants need at least 150 ppm; no plants no people)
If anything, we’d have to have agreements to ensure each nation is doing its part to maintain minimum levels.
There is so much CO2 dissolved in the oceans that there is no way atmospheric concentrations can drop to 150 ppm.
Even if human emission cease immediately it would likely take at least 100,000 years for CO2 to drop below 300 ppm.
Ken
That depends on where your plants grow.
Concentrations of 800 to 1000 ppm are, AFAIK, only valuable in case of greenhouses:
http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm
As bdgwx already mentioned, this depends also on what kind of plants you want to let grow.
But the most interesting contribution I found here:
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108/
because it additionally focuses on… nutritional consequences of an increase of CO2’s concentration.
J.-P. D.
The optimum CO2 level inside greenhouses is in the 800ppm to 1,200 ppm range, compared with about 415 ppm outdoors.
There are thousands of scientific experiments, under controlled conditions, showing that 800ppm or more CO2 almost always benefits C3 photosynthesis plants.
And more CO2 usually increases plant water efficiency too.
There are far fewer experiments with C4 and CAM photosynthesis plants, but those benefit too.
Most plants that humans and animals eat are C3 plants.
Higher levels of CO2 will optimize plant growth on our planet.
Optimum plant growth will support the most life on our planet.
Therefore, people who want to reduce CO2 levels, or prevent the CO2 level from doubling, are anti-life.
Even if CO2 caused ALL the warming since the 1970s, which is only an unproven assumption, that warming has been beneficial.
More warming would be even better.
The actual warming since the 1970s. measured with satellites, has most affected the colder northern half of the Northern Hemisphere, mainly during the colder six months of the year, and mainly at night.
Ideal locations, and timing, to BENEFIT from warming.
Leftists bellowing “climate emergency” are hysterical anti-science zealots.
We have all lived with global warming for the past 45 years — if it was harming anyone (it is not) we would have noticed problems decades ago.
Earth’s climate is the best it has been since the colder 1600s — the Little Ice Age.
Try to enjoy it.
We are lucky to be living in a warming trend during an interglacial period
I love CO2, and global warming.
People who think CO2 is “the devil in the sky” have been brainwashed.
Unfortunately the vast majority of the worlds food supply is not grown in a greenhouse or laboratory. It is grown in open fields which are subject to environmental influences that might change soil chemistry, precipitation, temperature, sunshine, etc. And while CO2 is undoubtedly an essential element that modulates crop yields so too are all of the other things listed above. Just like the global mean temperature is modulated by the net effect of all factors so too are crop yields. So the obvious question here is…can you guarantee all of those other factors will remain unchanged?
“beadofwax”
So thousands of scientific experiments on CO2 enrichment are wrong, and thousands of greenhouse owners are wrong, and beadofwax is right?
You are a non-hysterical anti-science zealot.
CO2 is not the devil in the sky, no matter what you believe.
And global warming is beneficial — we have all lived with it for the past 45 years, and it has been only good news.
Have a Nice Day
I did not say anything even remotely insinuating that CO2 enrichment experiments are wrong. In fact, I said the exact opposite.
What you need to understand is that the same science that links CO2 concentration to plant growth rates also links a bunch of other things to plant growth rates as well.
“can you guarantee all of those other factors will remain unchanged”
Given that the plants that comprise the “vast majority of the worlds food supply” evolved when CO2 levels were much higher as now … I think we can safely make the guarantee.
Not backed by any warrantee, you understand.
Those same plants have had 2 million years to optimise their function to the prevailing conditions. For 90% of the time that has been the 200ppm of a glacial period.
What makes you think that they can readapt to 400ppm plus in 140 years?
What I asked was can you guarantee that soil chemistry, temperature, precipitation, sunlight, and whatever else may modulate plant growth will not change?
ren
I’m happy to tell you that 24 hours later, the snow cover around Berlin still did not manage to reach 15 cm.
Elsewhere in Germoney it might look quite a bit different.
But… certainly NOT in Bavaria.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, you are in Germany?
Here is one of your long term records:
Halle (51.5144N, 11.9506E) ID:GM000003218
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=GM000003218&ds=14&dt=1
Temperatures were 1885 were 9.25, and in 2010 and 2015 they were 9.25.
The range peak set in 1910 rarely gets broken.
With that kind of convincing evidence of global warming, I can understand why Germany is destroying the economy.
While Germany is building Wind Farms, Russia and China are drilling like mad, siphoning money from Germany for their Green Development Mechanism of the UN, and developing a military that relies on diesel, nuclear, and natural gas. China and Russia will never power their tanks with solar, jets with the wind, and carriers with geothermal. If America follows Germany and destroys their energy production, we will not be able to save Europe from being conquered by the Totalitarians. Every Mark Germany gives to China and Russia to fight climate change is being used to fund a military that Germany won’t be able to stop.
Halle ID:GM000003218 warmed by 1.88C +/- 0.23 from 1880-2015. And you clearly are not using the adj-homogenized data because your values for 1885, 2010, and 2015. Actually your values don’t even match the unadjusted data so I’m not sure what you are looking at.
bdgwx, this is what you consider an uptrend. Remember CO2 “traps” heat by continually increasing W/M^2.
Halle:
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/stdata_show_v4.cgi?id=GM000003218&ds=14&dt=1
1) The range set using 1910 peak and 1940 trough rarely gets broken
2) Recent Temperatures 2010 and 2015 were below the level of almost the entire time period, and a full 2 degrees below the level set in 1915
3) The record low was set in 1940
4) Run the regression through 1995 and you will have a (-) trend
5) Only the current outlier period shows temperatures reaching new highs
6) The level set in 1995 is almost an all-time low
7) CO2 can’t explain the post-2000 outliers
8) CO2 can’t driver temperatures from near an all-time low in 1995 to an all-time high currently
9) I bet those current temperatures will be collapsing, and if you run your regression next year, you will have a much smaller coefficient
Once again bdgwx, you use outliers to make your case. Nothing in that chart can be used as evidence that CO2 is the cause. Believing that a chart with a near low set in 1995 that started in 1880 is completely laughable. Believe what you want, but a gas that continually adds W/M^2 to the atmosphere can’t result in a low set in 1995, and then a peak set in 2020.
The regression from 1880-1995 is 1.24C +/- 0.24.
bdgwx: Halle ID:GM000003218 warmed by 1.88C +/- 0.23 from 1880-2015.
OK, let’s play Cherry Pick the Data:
Temp in 1885 9.25 temp 1995 7.25, a full 2 degree drop over almost 100 years as CO2 increased from 300 to near 400
Temp in 1910 10.5 temps in 1995 7.25, full 3.25 degree drop over almost a 100 year period
The Temp Peak set in 1910 is only breached 7 times, all but the current period rapidly falls back into the normal range
The Peak set in 1910 isn’t broken again until 1950 and then again in 1975. How can increasing CO2 cause such long pauses?
Once again, believe what you want, nothing in that chart can be attributed to CO2 and a continually increasing W/M^2. Evidence of warming isn’t evidence CO2 is causing it.
Im still waiting on someone to explain how CO2 can increase from 300 to 400 ppm and have temperatures drop by a full 2 degrees or 3.25 as that chart demonstrates? You seem to only focus on the up volatility, and completely ignore that the down volitility destroys the argument that CO2 drives warming.
CO2isLife said: OK, lets play Cherry Pick the Data:
So you’re criticism here is that I’m not cherry picking data? Seriously?
CO2isLife said: Once again, believe what you want,
It’s not what I want never that even if I did want anything at all it wouldn’t matter because the temperature in Halle does not care about my feelings.
CO2isLife said: Im still waiting on someone to explain how CO2 can increase from 300 to 400 ppm and have temperatures drop by a full 2 degrees or 3.25 as that chart demonstrates?
You’re going to be waiting a long time then.
CO2isLife said: You seem to only focus on the up volatility, and completely ignore that the down volitility destroys the argument that CO2 drives warming.
Patently False. I focus on ALL of the data…every single value. I plug ALL of the data into Excel’s LINEST function. I do NOT ignore any of variability either way whether it is up or down changes.
You, on the other hand, are literally doing the exact thing you indict me of. You cherry-pick peaks and troughs to make claims that this site has not experienced long term secular warming.
I’ve encountered several posters over the years that have questionable graph literacy in which they cannot discern trends in data on graphs, but this is the worst I’ve encountered by far. It is beyond implausible that anyone regardless of how deep their illiteracy goes can confuse a positive trend with 8-sigma confidence with a flat trend. The fact that you’re even questioning the fact that Halle has observed long term secular warming defies credulity. I call BS. So satisfy my curiosity if you don’t mind…what is your motivation for continually claiming there is no warming trend when LINEST is beyond decisive on that conclusion?
Bindidon, America protected Germany from the Russians Post-WWII.
If America follows Germany we won’t be able to rescue Europe again.
Delingpole: Green Jobs Collapse in Germany and Go to China Instead. What a Surprise!
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2021/02/09/delingpole-green-jobs-collapse-in-germany-and-go-to-china-instead-what-a-surprise/
The Geopolitical consequences of this Green Nonsense can’t be overstated. Russia and China are playing the West as fools.
Keep me away from your stoopid neofascist alt-right stuff, CO2isLife!
Bindidon Says: Keep me away from your stoopid neofascist alt-right stuff, CO2isLife!
Really? China is building 2 major Coal Burning Power Plants a Month, they have numerous nuclear reactors under development, and instead of wasting all their money on Wind and Solar, they are developing Nuclear Fusion. Russia is doing everything possible to get the US to kill their energy production as Fionia Hill testified in the Inpeachment hearings.
Joe, Jim and Hunter Biden have made fortunes assisting in the development of conventional energy production in Russia, The Ukraine and China.
Worst of all, Joe Biden is giving Iran a free pass to get a Nuclear Bomb. How safe will Germany and the rest of Europe be when Iran gets the Bomb?
Currently we just killed thousands of great jobs attached to the Key Stone Pipeline and we will be building thousands of electric car chargers across the country. Chargers that would require thousands of more Coal Power Plants to actually function at an normal level, but then again, no one owns electric cars so it is a purely symbolic virtue signalling effort.
Anyway, China and Russia are Fascist States, and the only Country that will keep Europe and Germany Safe and Free. Without the US, Europe is toast, and the Greener the US Goes, the more likely Europe will fall to the Totallitararians.
Good luck, a Green America won’t be able to power a War Machine, and they most likely won’t have the willingness to fight anyways. The way America is embracing Socialism, she may become a Fascist State on her own. If you understand what Fascism is, you understand Fascism is embraced on the Left, not the Right. No Fascist would support smaller Government and a Bill of Rights. The foundation of Fascism is a Big Government, and the Political Right is the exact opposite of a Fascist.
BTW, look at what happened to the US Capital last month and then study 1933 Burning of the Reichstag. See any familiarities? Most important, what was the reaction of the Government? See any similarities? The Trump Supporters are the only thing keeping America from embracing Fascism. The Left loves big oppressive governments. The Cancel Culture is the Political Left, not the Right.
CO2isLife
I repeat: keep me away from your alt-right breitbart stuff!
CO2…”The Geopolitical consequences of this Green Nonsense cant be overstated”.
No, it’s can’t. The Club of Rome, made up of the likes of Al Gore and other blithering idiots, has stated that democracy is ineffective for saving the world. I am sure that’s the vision Biden has for the US.
More on COR… https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/a5t1e/the_club_of_romes_world_government_climatechange/
Whereas the Club of Rome cannot be compared to the brutality of the Nazi regime, their intent is similar. They are willing to kill democracy to enable their myopic view of the world. These are the people we need to stand up to and oppose right now.
Many if not most of the members of COR are wealthy and I doubt if they regard life their way to requires them giving up their wealth. That will be expected of the rest of us, however, much like Stalin’s perverted views of Communism. He was no communist, he was a tyrannical SOB who put people into slave labour camps till they died, then replaced them with more.
Modern China has a similar regime with all the leaders being filthy rich. Guess which country the Club of Rome regard as being their role model?
People will justify any kind of brutality for a case.
CO2…”Has someone explained why these stations are showing no warming even though CO2 has increased from 300 to 415 PPM?”
I can offer a plausible explanation. NOAA has slashed 90% of its reporting stations since 1990. They likely slashed any station that was not showing significant warming.
I posted a link to a former NOAA page (now in Wayback machine) where they admit slashing the reporting surface stations from 6000 to less than 1500. At the Chiefio site, he supplies evidence that NOAA has slashed those reporting stations by 90% since 1990, via the GHCN database.
Taking the number 1500 as representing the end result of a 90% slash, and x as the former number of reporting stations, then x – 0.9x = 1500. So x = 1500/0.1 = 15,000 stations.
I presume that number represents only the hard surface and not the oceans. Anyway, NOAA now uses 1500 reporting hard surface stations which represent about 30% of the Earth’s surface area. They are emulating the 15,000 by interpolating the 1500 stations, some of them 1200 km apart, then homogenizing the results in a climate model. That means NOAA is fabricating over 14,000 stations in a climate model.
This drives Binny and Barry nuts, to see NOAA admit they are using such chicanery. They cannot accept that their authority figure is such a blatant cheater.
Robertson the cheating SOB…
… will never and never end lying about this station stuff.
binny…”Robertson the cheating SOB
will never and never end lying about this station stuff.”
You have yet to explain why I am wrong. When NOAA admits they have slashed surface stations from 6000 to less than 1500, I take it to mean that’s what they have done. Tony Heller cannot understand it and neither can I, unless, as he suggests, they are trying curve fit the data to the AGW theory by retro-fudging historical data.
Gordon Says: I can offer a plausible explanation. NOAA has slashed 90% of its reporting stations since 1990. They likely slashed any station that was not showing significant warming.
That is truly fascinating. Well, I posted 175 and counting sites that they missed. I would love to see what ones they dropped.
There is no way you can get an average of over 1 degree increase from the charts I posted, and none of them show a continual uptrend. That uptrend is a pure fraud.
CO2…look below for links @ February 9, 2021 at 7:21 PM . Sorry, meant to post them here but somehow displaced them.
bdg…”…”clearly are not using the adj-homogenized data because your values for 1885, 2010, and 2015…”
Are you serious? Homogenization is blatant cheating. Going back in time to fudge temperatures to what you think they should have been is cheating.
I couldn’t be more serious. If you don’t like the way GHCN performs quality control and makes adjustments for known errors and biases like station moves, time of observation, instrumentation changes, sighting changes, etc. then how would you do it?
bdg….”If you don’t like the way GHCN performs quality control and makes adjustments for known errors and biases like station moves, time of observation, instrumentation changes, sighting changes, etc. then how would you do it?”
If you stand back and look at the overall picture, it becomes blatantly clear that NOAA/GHCN are not interested in making adjustments for known errors and biased. Their sole intent is to straighten the temperature series curve so it shows a steady warming from 1850 onward.
The actual temperature curve as measured shows a major warming spike in the US during the 1930s then a negative curve from the 1940s to the 1970s. GISS in particular has worked hard at eliminating the 30s warming and the 40s – 70s cooling to make a linear curve showing only warming?
Why? Why would a national scientific organization have any interest in doing that unless they are damned alarmists? Why would NOAA throw out perfectly good temperatures from 90% of its reporting stations since 1990?
Before the hockey stick was presented there were comments from the authors in the Climategate emails as to how they might get rid of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, two major blips in the record that spoiled the effect of a straighter handle on the hockey stick. In the end, they simply eliminated the MWP and LIA from the graph, replacing them with error bars that are not apparent.
Why are you so naive that you cannot see this blatant cheating and why don’t you question it? When hockey stick proxy data circa 1960 -1970 was showing cooling while the actual globe was warming, they simply erased the offending proxy data and replaced it with real temperatures.
entropic…”If AGW is a scam it would require a coordinated conspiracy involving 190 governments and pretty well every physicist, biologist, oceonographer,…”
A few quotes from supporters of AGW…
The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.
Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
***
The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful.
Dr David Frame, Climate modeler, Oxford University
***
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
Paul Watson, Co-founder of Greenpeace
***
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
Sir John Houghton, First chairman of IPCC
***
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Christine Stewart, former Canadian Minister of the Environment
****
“We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
Prof. Stephen Schneider, Stanford Professor of Biology and Global Change. Professor Schneider was among the earliest and most vocal proponents of man-made global warming and a lead author of many IPCC reports. He is a member of the Club of Rome.
***
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation and member of the Club of Rome.
***
“Isnt the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isnt it our responsibility to bring that about?
“[The Earth Summit will play an important role in] reforming and strengthening the United Nations as the centerpiece of the emerging system of democratic global governance.”
“The concept of national sovereignty has been an immutable, indeed sacred, principle of international relations. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the new imperatives of global environmental cooperation. It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation states, however powerful. The global community must be assured of environmental security.”
Maurice Strong, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), Al Gore’s mentor and executive member of the Club of Rome.
***
“I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”
Al Gore, member of the Club of Rome and set to become the world’s first carbon billionaire. He is also the largest shareholder of Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), which looks set to become the world’s central carbon trading body.
Maurice Strong sits on the board of directors for CCX.
***
“We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.”
David Rockefeller, Club of Rome executive member, former Chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank, founder of the Trilateral Commission, executive member of the World Economic Forum and donated the land on which the United Nations stands. Speaking at a U.N. Business Conference, Sept. 14, 1994
https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/a5t1e/the_club_of_romes_world_government_climatechange/
CO2…”I would love to see what ones they dropped”.
It’s all covered in this site but you have to dig through all the links to find it.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/ghcn-up-north-blame-canada-comrade/
video…part 1…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX3NxkzUIE8
video..part 2…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTdrjvnxG6U&feature=youtube_gdata
GR,
Would you mind including Michael Smith’s own global mean temperature dataset so that we can all review it? I browsed around a bit and I was unable to locate it.
bdg…”Would you mind including Michael Smiths own global mean temperature dataset so that we can all review it? I browsed around a bit and I was unable to locate it”.
What are you blethering about? Neither Smyth nor Heller have an interest in providing a personal data set, their goal is to reveal blatant cheating by major so-called scientific organizations, like NOAA and GISS.
Heller is an environmentalist who walks the walk. He is also an expert analyzing data and he has done it so well he has you behaving like an uneducated idiot. Is this the best you can do? Can you not offer evidence that Smyth or Heller are wrong? Or are you satisfied to butt kiss authority?
I’m sorry if my request offends you. It is never my intent to offend anyone on here. But I don’t think it is unreasonable to request a dataset either published by Smith or Heller or one that they feel best represents reality so that we can all objectively score them against those that they criticize. Who knows…maybe their criticisms are based on flawed analysis or maybe they have a point. Unfortunately none of us can tell because AFAIK they’ve never even tried to compute the global mean temperature. I’m prepared to be wrong about this if either truly has done the work, published it, and provided a comprehensive uncertainty analysis clearly establishing a besting of those they criticize. Without the “here’s how to do it better” explanation the arguments are nothing more than “nuh-uh”s.
bdg…”I’m sorry if my request offends you. It is never my intent to offend anyone on here. But I don’t think it is unreasonable to request a dataset either published by Smith or Heller or one that they feel best represents reality so that we can all objectively score them against those that they criticize”.
I don’t feel offended. I don’t mean to be offensive either and I deliberately bit my tongue replying to you. Watch the Heller video carefully, he supplies all the data you need. It is not his intent to produce a personal data set, he is simply using data sets produced by scientific organizations earlier in the 20th century with the fudged data sets later in the century.
Heller’s forte is analysis. Although he worked as an electrical engineer designing processor chips like the Intel i7, he was later employed in analysis, looking for data that would reveal bugs in the systems which could cost the company millions of dollars in retooling. As a result, he became the go to guy for analyzing complex data and finding inconsistencies.
That’s all he’s doing with the temperature datasets, looking for inconsistencies and he has found them in spades. Some of them are glaring, places in the data where GISS and or NOAA have completely erased existing data that had been previously documented even by themselves.
I have no interest in conspiracy theories. When theories come forth about 7-11 being a ploy of the government, or the Moon landings being a hoax, I roll my eyes. However, this eradication and rewriting of scientific data by NOAA and GISS is intolerable. They give no reason for it other than cockamamey justifications. Even at that, I resist the temptation to claim a conspiracy theory, even though I freely accuse both of scientific misconduct.
I mean, what justification was there for NOAA to go back and re-assess the SST and adjust it to show a trend after the IPCC announced a warming hiatus from 1998 – 2012? What reason was there for GISS to erase the incredible warming in the US during the 1930’s, where records for warming and heat waves were set? What reason could GISS possibly give for erasing recorded cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s?
It’s all there in Heller’s video with supporting data taken from reliable sources. He got much of his leads for the data by searching through old newspaper archives to see what people were talking about back in the 40s – 70s and he gave some of his sources:
newspaper.com … a paysite.
trove.nla.gov.au …a free site
the chicago tribune site…apparently free.
the New York Times …a paysite.
According to what he read, many scientists were preparing for an Ice Age in the 1970s. They were basing it on the negative temperature trend from 1940 – 1970. That negative trend has been altered in NOAA and GISS data sets as if it never occurred.
Using the archives above he was able to dig out stories going back to the 1800s, getting quotes from scientists and journalists which lead him to formal scientific data.
Heller has no reason to lie. He is a committed environmentalist and a thorough professional. He was a believer in AGW because a former employer convinced him of the theory.
Two things happened to make him curious. On a trip to the UK during the 1990s it had been reported there has been no snow for a couple of years, proof some took for global warming. On a trip to Cambridge on a train, the train was stopped by a snow blizzard and the M1, a major highway was turned into a parking lot by the blizzard. That made him curious.
Back home in Colorado, they suffered a spell of severe cold weather. It occurred to him that this was evidence of cyclical weather patterns and not related to CO2 warming. That got him interested in the theory and he began to research. The rest is history, he found massive evidence of data corruption, and if anyone was qualified to find it and analyze it, it was Heller.
The fact that Smyth at chiefio found it independently deepens the case of both. You are not going to find such evidence if you refuse to look.
Att: CO2 is life…I think your claims are qualified at 20:30 of this video by Tony Heller.
Barry…refers to Heller in derogatory terms for no known reason other than his own bias. Heller is a highly qualified engineer with a masters degree in electrical engineering, among many other qualifications. He has worked as an engineer designed several top microsprocessors including the Intel i7.
His work on quality control and software programming alone qualifies him to research and reveal the abysmal cheating of NOAA. You can see it clearly at the time listed above in the video (20:30) just how much NOAA has bs-ed the historical record to eliminate the truth…that it is no warmer now that it has ever been.
Heller makes it clear that the 1930s were far warmer in the US than at any other time, by far. He has no axe to grind because he is a committed environmentalist.
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2019/08/16/tony-heller-on-ushcn-data-diddle/
At the 29:00 mark of the video there is blatant evidence of NASA GISS erasing the 1940 – 1970 cooling trend that had been claimed around the globe.
At the 42:00 mark of the video there is a revelation that Bill Gray, an eminent hurricane specialist, had his funding cutoff after telling Al Gore he did agree with his views on global warming. Bill worked for NOAA which provides strong evidence that NOAA was in bed with Al Gore and his alarmists nonsense.
Can you also post Tony Heller’s global mean temperature dataset so that we can all review it as well?
bdg…”Can you also post Tony Hellers global mean temperature dataset so that we can all review it as well?”
I’d be glad to discuss anything if you’d get to the point rather than feigning an ad hom attack on Heller. None of your alarmist scientists have his intelligence level, his courage, or his ability to analyze data.
Don’t know what is in your character that forces you to support charlatans and cheats while slamming legitimate scientists who present real data to support their arguments.
My number one goal here is to acquire a global mean temperature history with as little uncertainty as possible. If Heller has something better then great. In the meantime his election to not publish anything leaves me no choice but to rely on others. Remember…not even attempting to make the measurement is infinitely worse than all other measurements accompanied with quantified uncertainty.
Think of it this way. How does Heller even know if NOAA, NASA, BEST, Copernicus, Cowtan&Way, JMA, Had.C.R.U.T, UAH, RSS, AIRS, STAR, etc. are wrong if he doesn’t even have a global mean temperature dataset that he can reliably use to assess error? How does he even know what the global mean temperature is? How does he eliminate hypothesis that the Earth has already warmed by 2C or even 5C?
I’m one of those pesky skeptics who is convinced not by “nuh-uh” arguments, but by “here’s how you do it better” arguments. I’m skeptical of Heller’s claims partly because he has a history of misrepresenting other’s works, but primarily because he just doesn’t other anything better than what we already have. In fact, in the context of the global mean temperature he offers nothing at all AFAIK.
b,
Nice try at insinuating you are part of a group with any authority.
Who cares if you and your ilk want to review something?
This from one of the climate alarmists, Phil Jones –
* Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer‐review literature is! *
God preserve us from having you lot of dimwits reviewing anything!
Maybe you could provide a useful GHE description, so I can tear it to shreds. I wont need any help, but I am sure plenty will be forthcoming if I do.
swenson…”* Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer‐review literature is! *”
Unfortunately, that was aimed at a paper co-authored by John Christy of UAH. And they succeeded!!!
John is one of the few climatologists who has an actual degree in climate science. He also has a reputation for integrity, going so far as to pay his own way to events, even when called to testify at US government hearings.
John earned his degree under the tutelage of Kevin Trenberth, now with NCAR. The reference to Kevin in the above quote is apparently to Trenberth. Both he and Jones are Coordinating Lead Authors at IPCC reviews. They call the shots about which reviewers are called to serve and apparently which papers are allowed to be reviewed.
Trenberth has been highly critical of the work done by UAH. He has interfered with peer review to the point where a journal editor felt compelled to resign. John could just as easily have rolled over and accepted the AGW theory taught to him by Trenberth, but seeing the sat data, and being a man of integrity, he told it like it was, whether it cost him or not. To his credit, Roy did the same.
Gordon is on the roll tonight
Rolled right into the doghouse. Told my ladyfriend, a health care professional, that the covid vaccine contradicts the Nuremberg Code which prohibits experimentation being done on any human without his/her written consent, after having explained to them the possible dangers.
That’s exactly what is going on with the covid vaccine.
From the code:
“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential”.
In Israel, Natanyahoo has committed all Israeli’s to be vaccinated and for the release of information, Pfizer has done a sweetheart deal, supplying them with doses that no one else can have. It’s ironic that the people mainly behind the writing of the Nuremberg Code should now be forced to be guinea pigs for the testing of an unknown vaccine.
As a result, 12,000 Israeli’s, at last count, have tested positive for covid ‘AFTER’ receiving the vaccine. No kidding!! You inject people with RNA believed to be from a virus, and after vaccination they test positive. Doh!!!
It is sad but true. Gordon told me this last night as I tucked him into bed. He became very agitated when we suggested that we had a new vaccination to cure paranoia. He only calmed down when we said all our inmates including Swenson, Tony Heller and Chris Essex were being treated the same.
n,
You live in a bizarre fantasyland.
Have you ever considered living in the real world?
Thats the one where people called scientists use something called the scientific method, in the search for truth.
Off you go now, little psychobabbler. Retreat to your fantasy world. You may join Binny, dreaming about having super powers, delivering electric shocks and inverting death to those with whom you disagree.
Ho ho ho!
Thanks Gordon, very informative. Tony Heller is amazing with his analytical abilities.
Heller is a propagandist who cherry-picks and outright doctors data and graphs.
He seems amazing to people who like what he says, but scrutiny is not kind to his efforts.
Nasty Barry
Could you provide one example, or is a generic, childish, leftist character attack all you can manage?
GR’s video at 30:00. That graph is straight up doctored. I talked about it below.
Gordon,
It is no longer the Club of Rome that is important, it is the World Economic Forum that meets every year in Davos, and that this year has met in a first part telematically between January 25 and 29 and they plan to meet in person in Singapore in May .
Adelaida…thanks for information.
Adelaida…just looked them up on the Net, very scary people. I think people involved with this have serious mental problems, along the lines of a God-complex.
I was disturbed that our Canadian Prime Minister is involved with this.
I am going to watch and wait and see how things unfold. I want to see if the upward temperature trend continues ,levels off , drops or drops abruptly.
I am watching oceanic sea surface temperatures, solar activity and geological activity, to name some.
Oceanic sea ice in the Arctic is low is this a consequence of the warming trend or is it a consequence of the global warming trend?
I do not know the answer yet.
Yes. Arctic sea ice declines are the result of the persistent planetary energy imbalance. That energy accumulates in the land, atmosphere, hydrosphere, and cryosphere. The excess energy moves through the climate system and eventually makes its way into the cryosphere where it overcomes the enthalpy of fusion to melt the ice. And with the EEI at +0.87 W/m^2 +/- 0.12 (https://tinyurl.com/34pjx4hj) you’re going to be waiting awhile before there is a significant long term change in the temperature trajectory.
The “+0.87 W/m^2 +/- 0.12 energy imbalance” is anti-science.
bdgwx is just promoting his cult religion, as does the first line of his link: “Human-induced atmospheric composition changes cause a radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere which is driving global warming.”
There’s NO science to support that bunk, just beliefs. Starting a “paper” with a belief ain’t science.
Thanks for the EEI paper. Not the best news.
People preferring false beliefs over reality is never the “best news”, Ent. Like you, bdgwx is not very good at “critical thinking”.
bdgwx absorbs the AGW nonsense, and then adds to it with false accusations and misrepresentations, like this:
“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.?
1) He won’t tell me where I ever claimed the S/B Law was bogus.
2) Or, where I ever claimed 231.7K for Earth’s temperature?
He just makes messes and leaves them for others to clean up.
Our resident expert, Clint, thinks a measurement is a ‘belief’, and anti-science…
This is turning out to be a reproducible effect:
Everything Clint says is OPPOSITE to what is true.
Wires crossed in his brain?
And “He just makes messes and leaves them for others to clean up.”
is another one.
Its actually Clint that left behind a big mess for others to clean up, when he claimed that the Moon has no angular momentum!
Troll Nate has the “false accusations” and “misrepresentations” down pat. (Those must be some of the first things they learn in troll school.) But, he still can’t compose a cogent comment. His comments fall more in the “knee-jerk” classification.
Consequently, it’s easy to ignore him.
Yep, since you fail miserably when you try to discuss the science, it really is best not to post/respond at all.
Yes, he often reacts and writes a comment without properly reading what he’s responding to. Just another of the many reasons why I no longer respond to Nate.
You mean Clint should really know what hes talking about, before posting and tossing ad-homs?
I think we all can agree with that.
Salvatore – I have seen quite a few useless posts cluttering up this site but yours takes the cake. Please take your personal diary entries elsewhere – nobody is interested in what your are watching and waiting for.
Michael Jackson
Are you a newcomer here?
What about looking at the daily, nonsensical trash produced by genial Ignoramusses like Robertson, ClintR, Swenson, CO2isLife and a few others?
J.-P. D.
JD, I see you’ve gone full-troll now.
That’s good, it was so hard for you to fake it before, having no interest in science or reality.
michael jackson…thought you were dead. You write like you used to dance…weird.
Salvatore
That’s a lot of temperature watching you do!
Maybe you need another hobby?
The long term trend is warming for the past 20,000 years.
The medium term trend is warming since the late 1600s
The shirt term trend is warming since about 1975.
There was a flat trend from 2003 to mid-2015, but that is to be expected during a warming (or cooling) trend, once in a while.
So let me tell you how it ends:
A decade or two will go by with no hysterical “hottest year evah” announcements — and suddenly people will realize the wonderful warming trend has ended, and a cooling trend has begun.
The leftists will then begin predicting a global cooling crisis.
They will claim the only solution is to elect leftist politicians, give them more power, let them spend a ton of money and tell everyone what to do.
Just like leftists do now, except the boogeyman would have changed from a fake global warming climate emergency, to a fake global cooling climate emergency.
We have all lived through a 45 year period of global warming, since about 1975, and it has been wonderful.
The climate of our planet has not been this pleasant in over 300 years.
Our planet is also ‘greening’ from more CO2 in the atmosphere.
A doubling of the CO2 level would be even better for the growth of plants that humans and animals use for food.
Salvatore, you should go outside as much as possible (maybe not so much in really cold weather), to enjoy the most moderate climate in hundreds of years.
One day the warming will end, and cooling will began.
Our planet has been warming or cooling for 4.5 billion years with no man made CO2 at all.
No warming trend, or cooling trend, has ever been permanent.
I predict, with 100 percent confidence, that the future climate will be warmer (I hope) … unless it gets cooler.
And nothing humans do will affect the numbers by more than a few tenths of a degree C. in either direction = ho hum.
The leftists who believe a climate emergency is in progress because CO2 is the “devil in the sky” are brainwashed anti-science fools.
Some of them post comments here.
They live in a wonderful climate right now, but can’t enjoy it, because they are so fearful about an imaginary future climate emergency!
The catastrophic consequences of this Green Energy Fantasy, and remember Chinese Tanks run on Diesel and Russian Bombers fly using Jet Fuel.
Achtung Baby! (It’s Cold Outside) – Germany’s “Green” Energy Fail Rescued By Coal And Gas
Germany’s held up as the world’s wind and solar capital. But, at the moment, the ‘green’ stuff can’t be purchased, at any price.
Its millions of solar panels are blanketed in snow and ice and breathless, freezing weather is encouraging its 30,000 wind turbines to do absolutely nothing, at all. [Note: don’t forget about the constant supply of electricity from the grid that these things chew up heating their internal workings so they don’t freeze up solid!]
So much for the ‘transition’ to an all wind and sun powered future – aka the ‘Energiewende’.
https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/achtung-baby-its-cold-outside-germanys-green-energy-fail-rescued-coal-and-gas
Ill agree that Germany is not the ideal place in Europe to plant solar panels. But Spain or Italy or N. Africa would do just fine.
Solar panels are excellent
… if you want to spend a lot of money, take up a lot of space for solar farms (maybe cutting down lots of trees to create that space), to get part-time electricity, only when the sun is shining … that requires natural gas back-up, plants, taxpayer funded subsidies, tax credits, and government mandates to force utilities to use solar and wind power that increase electricity prices.
If you add batteries, the total cost is HUGE.
Only a fool would want that.
Or a deranged climate alarmist.
Or a leftist.
(I repeat myself)
CO2isLife
Your competence in observing publications by ‘interested’ people is exactly equal to your competence in evaluating temperature time series and their (non existing) correlation to CO2 presence just above surface.
” … freezing weather is encouraging its 30,000 wind turbines to do absolutely nothing, at all. ”
Great!
This is exactly as dumb as Robertson claiming that NOAA replaced 90% of their temperature stations by climate models.
*
Germany is far from how much electricity it could produce out of renewables. Power supply managers, conservative AND social democrat lawmakers do their best to keep it as low as possible.
The ones will keep industry’s profit at maximum, the others want to save jobs, their eternal, useless dream.
Even gas plants are receding because coal is cheeper!
Nevertheless, the country increases its renewable share every year.
https://www.ise.fraunhofer.de/content/dam/ise/en/documents/News/electricity_production_germany_2020.pdf
If you were a bit better informed, you would know that the highest wind power production is during the winter, and that winds below 100 km/h don’t affect production very much.
” The so far absolute highest value of the wind power was reached on December 8, 2018 with 49,862 MW between 11 a.m. and 12 p.m. The day with the highest average wind power (46,695 MW) over 24 hours was also December 8, 2018. Particularly high values were measured, benefiting from a storm low with high wind speeds and a large spatial extent. ”
Lowest wind power contribution is in July.
Here you see the daily contributions since Feb, 1:
https://www.windjournal.de/erneuerbare-energie/aktuelle_einspeiseleistung_wind_und_solar_energie
*
A point most people don’t understand: these stats contain ONLY public production. Electricity produced by the industry for internal purposes is not mentioned here.
*
Don’t misunderstand me, CO2! I have no CO2 agenda, no renewable agenda.
I simply like neither the SO2 produced by our stoopid coal plants, nor the huge amounts of nuclear waste we temporarily store since 40 years in the country.
J.-P. D.
binny…”This is exactly as dumb as Robertson claiming that NOAA replaced 90% of their temperature stations by climate models”.
Robertson did not say that but in your crazed, hateful state you read things into posts that were never said.
I said NOAA has synthesized station using climate models to replace those they slashed. Why would any sane, rational scientist do that? If you have 15,000 reporting stations globally, why not use the real data?
GISS gave us a partial answer, they lack the budget to analyze more than a few of the stations available. It’s more cost effective for them to synthesize fake stations using statistical interpolation and homogenization of stations up to 1200 km apart.
In other words, alarmists don’t want to spend the money to give us accurate data from real thermometers. Besides, if they slash a lot of stations and create them synthetically, they can make the trend show anything they want. Also, GISS and NOAA are government-funded organizations and the governments obviously don’t want us to know there is no problem with global warming or climate change. They are happy to under-fund them and get results they want to hear.
GISS has been busy erasing real data and replacing it with fudged data. They get already fudged data from NOAA and fudge it more. And Binny thinks that is perfectly fine.
Of course, Binny is a number cruncher who thinks you can do science by entering numbers into a spreadsheet app.
Far foo many in the climate data community are going on and on about linear trends and significance on monthly serially correlated data. From temperature to hydrological analyses, these tests must never be used for such data and commonly lead to misleading conclusions. At the scale of centennial changes, a few years of monthly data yields an effective sample size (n) approaching 1 in non-stationary autocorrelated data. The most obvious example is engineers adjusting their log-pearson return periods for extreme events, once projected as “1 in 100 year events” or 1% probability in the 1960s (based on limited data), to 5% or 10% events by further observation today. Appropriate application of statistical tools would put today’s observations well within the range of uncertainty visible at that time. If no better tools exist, divide (n) by 5 for a glimpse of realistic uncertainty in trend detection.
Conservatively, reduce (n) by 1 order of magnitude.
and recognise it all washes out at millennium scale.
Spoken like a dumb engineer.
Absolutely no idea about statistical analysis.
Do you advocate for using tools that were developed for independent data to be applied to data which is the integral of everything before? We can look at trends of the weight of newborn babies over time using classic techniques, but for environmental data a lot of the time what you measure today is highly related to what you had yesterday. This renders the probability distributions developed for independent data non-informative, but it seems to be widely accepted.
CAD…”Appropriate application of statistical tools would put todays observations well within the range of uncertainty…”
Since when has physics been based on statistical analysis? Physics is based on experimentation, data collection, observation, and conclusion. If it comes down to requiring statistical analysis to determine a conclusion, then you’re dealing with mathematics rather than physics.
Unfortunately, many people think a purely statistical analysis is enough, but it’s not. NASA GISS proclaimed 2014 the hottest year ever based on statistical analysis where they offered a probability of 38% that 2014 was the hottest year ever. UAH data revealed it as a very normal year, nowhere near to being a record year.
That’s a major problem with statistics, when people abuse it to tell a lie. An engineer would look at the UAH graph with its red running average and immediately see that 2014 was nowhere near the warmest year ever. Engineers are trained to solve problems not to number-crunch.
Return periods of extreme events are probabilistic by definition.
You may be preoccupied with global average temperature and missed the point. However, the same mistakes are made in temperature trend assessment and the engineering concept of intensity duration frequency analysis for floods, droughts, warm, cold etc for any given location which is ultimately what all the fuss is about. I confess I could have been more clear.
CAD…”You may be preoccupied with global average temperature and missed the point”.
No…it’s the opposite, I think the global average is a fictitious, meaningless number. Same with the term climate change. It suggests a global climate which is changing, a ludicrous concept.
In fact, I have argued that the UAH trend line cannot be applied practically over the range. The first 18 years, or so, represent a recovery from aerosol cooling. That is followed by an 18 year flat trend, which is followed by an El Nino peak in early 2016 that is taking its time to subside.
I fail to understand your argument, it sounds like we are in agreement.
CAD…”I fail to understand your argument, it sounds like we are in agreement”.
My initial post was not intended as a disagreement, I did not fully understand your position, especially in reference to engineers. Glad we agree.
CAD
May I propose that you read a few documents like this one
Statistical analysis of coverage error in simple global temperature estimators
https://academic.oup.com/climatesystem/article/3/1/dzy003/5056434
before you apply critique to people whose work you seem to know very few about?
FYI, Dr Cowtan is no ‘climatologist’: he is a specialist in cristallography, a science and engineering corner which seems to motivate to make intensive use of statistics in what he is doing nearby since years.
*
Or would you like to read this head post on Nick Stokes’ moyhu blog?
Adjusting temperature series stats for autocorrelation
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2013/09/adjusting-temperature-series-stats-for.html
*
Your comments remind me of the economist McKitrick, who unqualifiedly discredited Mann for using PCA for his proxy processing (but curiously did not criticize Zharkova as she used the same method for her solar dynamo evaluations, he he).
*
Don’t wonder if the one or the other ‘specialist’ comes around and denigrates both Cowtan and Stokes! Such people only demonstrate by this way the level of their own ignorance.
J.-P. D.
The links do not appear to refute my point. In the end the application of stats requires judgement by the analyst. In practical climate timescales I am suggesting 1 month or 1 year of observations contains less than 1 independent unit of information – that is all. Very few people appear willing to acknowledge this. This is not meant to critique Dr Spencer considering he hasn’t attempted to post confidence intervals on the trend. However, if one does want to post confidence intervals I am suggesting they would be much much wider than the output of a raw OLS program.
binny…”Your comments remind me of the economist McKitrick, who unqualifiedly discredited Mann for using PCA for his proxy processing….”
Myopic reasoning like this is why I have taken to calling you an idiot. McKitrick and his partner Steve McIntyre, were supported by the views of an expert statistician, Wegmann, called by the US government to verify the claims of McKitrick and McIntyre. He agreed with them wholeheartedly.
Mann et al were amateurs in statistical analysis and they botched the tree ring proxy analysis. Mann had just received his degree when the hockey stick was published. That did not stop the IPCC and Al Gore from holding the hockey stick up as proof of unprecedented warming, even though the proxy data failed to show the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.
Later, when the National Academy of Science and Wegmann revealed the atrocious proxy data analysis, and criticized it, the IPCC rushed to amend the hockey stick, adding so many error bars it became known as the spaghetti graph.
Perhaps CAD could look at these links and comment. Binny obviously has no idea what they are talking about.
https://climateaudit.org/2007/05/15/swindle-and-the-ipcc-tar-spaghetti-graph/
https://climateaudit.org/2006/03/31/a-new-spaghetti-graph/
Considering temperature data is clearly integral in nature, perhaps it would be more informative, from an energy balance perspective, to analyze trends on the derivative on short timescales.
CAD…”Considering temperature data is clearly integral in nature, perhaps it would be more informative, from an energy balance perspective, to analyze trends on the derivative on short timescales”.
I am not trying to speak as an expert, just an interested observer. It seems to me that a collection of data points cannot be treated without drawing some kind of curve through them, therefore treating them as an integral. If you take the derivative of that curve at any point you are not returning to the actual temperature data points but to an average of them, are you not?
Again, I am not arguing, just trying to clarify. If you look at the UAH graph, Roy has included a red-coloured curve as the running average. Although it seems to be more complex than I regard it, the red running average, to me, represents the integral average of individual anomalies. At least, it seems to follow the apparent average of the individual anomalies.
However, the anomalies themselves are the mother of all averages in that they represent the global average, which is essentially a meaningless number.
How do you propose to find a derivative?
I expect atmospheric temperature today is a cumulative function of the temperature variations prior, and so it’s the sum of temperature change at any interval you wish. To calculate the derivative is dy/dx. Perhaps the dy/dx is a measure of the total energy balance of the atmosphere over the chosen interval. This allows an assessment of net changes in energy at any given time.
For independent data, for example, we could use a baseball player’s seasonal batting average. The player’s average in 10 years is not the cumulative function of the previous seasonal variations, he starts at 0.000 every year!
bdg…”How does Heller even know if NOAA, NASA, BEST, Copernicus, Cowtan&Way, JMA, Had.C.R.U.T, UAH, RSS, AIRS, STAR, etc. are wrong if he doesnt even have a global mean temperature dataset that he can reliably use to assess error?”
Once again, his mission was to reveal inconsistencies and contradictions in the data. Why don’t you try watching his video with an open mind and you’ll understand that.
His mission is to reveal things that he thinks are inconsistencies and contradictions. But when we actually go and investigate them (which ends up being difficult since he is less than forthcoming with sources) we find that he has misrepresented things. For example, the first graph after 29:00 (the time GR wanted us to start at) shows the 1974 NCAR plot vs 2016 GISS plot. Except that when I do the comparison I get nothing like what Heller did. That NCAR 1974 graph despite being 50 years old and likely excludes the Arctic region is consistent with the GISS data for the NH. Did Heller try to compare the global temperature with the northern hemisphere temperature? I don’t know…he never formally publishes his criticisms so that we can do a proper review.
Actually in looking at this closer the NCAR plot (which I still cannot verify) shows 0.3C of cooling from 1943’ish to 1956’ish point-to-point. But GISS actually shows 0.5C of cooling point-to-point during that period. GISS shows more point-to-point cooling than the NCAR plot. That is the exact opposite of what Heller shows though. And what about the end point of 1970 in the NCAR plot…0.4C cooling vs 0.4C cooling on GISS.
Don’t take my word for it though. Look for yourself.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/graph_data/Hemispheric_Temperature_Change/graph.png
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/graph_data/Hemispheric_Temperature_Change/graph.csv
Heller must observe the “data revisions” over the decades, such as cooling the 1930s, and warming the 1940 to 1975 period.
NASA “data” in 2020 can be compared with prior NASA “data”, 20 years earlier, and earlier NCAR data, to show huge revisions made years and decades after the actual measurements.
Also, the “data” include a large percentage of wild guesses called “infilling”.
No one here knows how much guessing is done.
Heller has examined the NOAA “data” for the US contiguous 48 states, and the percentage of “estimated” (infilled) “data” was huge — that’s a big problem for a nation that allegedly has the best network of weather stations in the world.
The government bureaucrat “scientists” who do the infilling guessing want more global warming, and have predicted fast global warming, so they are very likely to be biased, whether intentionally, or unintentionally.
The claim of a global average temperature +/- 0.1 degree C. margin of error is a lie.
The measurement instruments are not that accurate since the 1800s, and with all the never verified infilling, no one could possibly state a margin of error — that would be a guess too.
Heller has the false claims of incredible accuracy and large percentage of infilling to criticize.
He does not need to supply his own dataset.
We have UAH to keep the surface “numbers” more honest.
We all know the planet has been warming since the 1970s.
The exact global average temperature anomaly does not matter.
The trend is all we need to know, to the nearest 0.5 degrees C. is good enough.
Richard…”The measurement instruments are not that accurate since the 1800s…”
On top of that, data from many of the global countries was not available. We’ve had wars, insurrections, and a slew of reasons why data could not be accessed universally. No one was very interested either.
And when data is available, the alarmists ignore it. A German scientist recorded levels of CO2 in excess of 400 ppmv in the 1940s. The IPCC doesn’t want to hear that because they have their pet theory that global warming is caused by CO2. They are so into that theory they have completely ignored re-warming from the Little Ice Age.
Furthermore, the proxy CO2 levels they claim from Antarctic ice cores is fraught with uncertainty. Jaworowski pointed out that ice cores within 200 miles of each other in Antarctica varied in CO2 concentration from about 200 ppmv to over 2000 ppmv. The IPCC cherry picked a value that suited them from the lower end of that range.
GR,
Because the photoshopped graph at 30:00 is so egregiously wrong and misleading at best and because it serves as a central thesis for his talking point I’ll respectfully ask that you have Heller correct it and resubmit for review.
And just so there is no miscommunication here…I’m pretty tolerant of trivial mistakes. I make quite a few of them myself. But this was pretty egregious. That doesn’t necessarily mean all of his points are as egregiously wrong, but it does cast serious doubt. That’s why I want him to fix that one first before I investigate any of the other talking points. I would expect nothing less if the shoe was on the other foot so that is not a biased position I hold here.
The virus MOON-ROT-1 is currently developing at a dangerous speed.
Here some recent information.
A. From China.
1. http://www.china.org.cn/china/2019-09/07/content_75182268.htm
” A lunar day equals 14 days on Earth, a lunar night the same length. The Chang’e-4 probe switches to dormant mode during the lunar night due to lack of solar power.
During the ninth lunar day of the probe on the moon, the scientific instruments on the lander and rover worked well, and a new batch of 2.9 GB scientific detection data was sent to the core research team for analysis.
As a result of the tidal locking effect, the moon’s revolution cycle is the same as its rotation cycle, and the same side always faces Earth. ”
2. https://www.shine.cn/news/nation/2004307299/
” China’s lunar rover Yutu-2, or Jade Rabbit-2, has driven 447.68 meters on the far side of the moon to conduct scientific exploration of the virgin territory.
Both the lander and the rover of the Chang’e-4 probe have ended their work for the 17th lunar day, and switched to dormant mode for the lunar night due to the lack of solar power, according to the Lunar Exploration and Space Program Center of the China National Space Administration.
China’s Chang’e-4 probe, launched on Decebmer 8, 2018, made the first-ever soft landing on the Von Karman Crater in the South Pole-Aitken Basin on the far side of the moon on January 3, 2019.
As a result of the tidal locking effect, the moon’s revolution cycle is the same as its rotation cycle, and the same side always faces the earth. A lunar day equals 14 days on Earth, and a lunar night is the same length. ”
*
B. From Japan
3. https://www.koreascience.or.kr/article/JAKO200502637762542.pdf
4. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011epsc.conf.1135S/abstract
” Lunar rotation and gravity measurements provide information of the physical state of the lunar interior. Previously only passive LLR (Lunar Laser Ranging) using CCR (corner cube reflectors) has been applied for the detailed study of lunar librations, i.e., rotation variability.
As for candidate instruments for SELENE-2 (a lunar landing mission by JAXA) and future lunar missions, we propose VLBI (inverse and differential VLBI) for gravity measurement to constrain tidal Love number, LLR (Lunar Laser Ranging) and ILOM (In-situ Lunar Orientation Measurement) for libration measurements.
*
C. From Russia
https://tinyurl.com/yolgro8g
**
My preliminary conclusion:
The Board of Directors of the
Committee To Uphold The Sacred Truth About The Moon’s Inability to Rotate
is politely asked to intervene before any dangerous land-time incidents for lunar missions occur, due to wrong assumptions by scientists working in slowly developing countries, especially… Japan.
With best regards
J.-P. D.
JD, I enjoy these long-winded efforts of yours to prove your incompetence. But, it really isn’t necessary. Your incompetence is well established.
And don’t worry about the bogus lunar axial rotation messing anyone up. Something that isn’t happening won’t mess anyone up.
binny…”A. From China”.
Both China and Japan, whom you quoted, are known for their ability to copy others in science. Obviously, the scientists you quote have not an original thought in their brains. They have copied the likes of NASA, who really don’t understand lunar motion wrt to rotation.
Ha ha ha haaah…
Very well done, guys!
And that is the very best:
” Obviously, the scientists you quote have not an original thought in their brains. ”
Says the most brainless, most reckless and above all most respectless of all people ‘comment’ing along Roy Spencer’s threads.
A poopr guy who says about a science man like Tobias Mayer, he “doesn’t know what he is talking about”.
Never did Robertson ever understand what are differential equations of motion, mainly brought into life by… Sir Isaac Newton, and heavily used by… Tobias Mayer.
But… this here
” Something that isnt happening wont mess anyone up. ”
is not that bad as well, hu?
Ha ha ha haaah… I have some fun today. Thanks a lot.
Es fehlen nur noch Flynn, DREMT und hunter, und dann ist die Mischpoke komplett.
J.-P. D.
OK, Pompous Bindidon.
Gordon writes:
“Quote from article: “Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe from 6,000 to less than 1,500?”
That’s NOAA talking but neither Binny nor Barry wants to hear it.”
Wrong again, I linked to that page, and quoted that and more of the quote above before you did on this thread.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/#comment-610139
And what was the answer to the question?
“The physical number of weather stations has shrunk as modern technology improved and some of the older outposts were no longer accessible in real time.
However, over time, the data record for surface temperatures has actually grown, thanks to the digitization of historical books and logs, as well as international data contributions.”
Where is the talk of slashing stations? Where does it say that these stations were deliberately deleted by NOAA?
It doesn’t say that at all. This has always been YOUR LIE. The rest of my post from 4 days ago continues:
Furthermore, I have shown you (nearly 20 times, I’d guess) the paper that explains why there are more stations in the mid 80s than more recently.
https://tinyurl.com/gp6z3qp
It explains that 1200 stations updated to NOAA in real-time, while many other station data were collected and hand digitisaed from old logs to add to the historical record.
Stations weren’t slashed. They were added retropspectively, and because they were not part of the regularly updating 1200 stations, that was that. Many of those old stations no longer operate, so it’s not even possible to seek permission to get regular updates from them.
Youve been shown this multiple times.
You continue to lie.
b,
Real time. Good excuse.
Who gives a toss?
Self styled climatologists use an old baseline, and 30 years of data – then average it, hoping to divine the future. Thats a complete and absolute waste of real time. Really pointless, if you take my point.
You are incredibly stupid. What you just wrote is completely wrong and off topic. Bile 1. Salience 0.
barry…”However, over time, the data record for surface temperatures has actually grown, thanks to the digitization of historical books and logs, as well as international data contributions.”
Would you mind explaining this because it sounds like a lot of NOAA bs. How the heck does a a data record grow when you are reducing the reporting stations? What they are talking about it enlarging the database by synthesizing fake stations using climate models.
barry…”Stations werent slashed. They were added retropspectively …”
The article states: “Why is NOAA using fewer weather stations to measure surface temperature around the globe from 6,000 to less than 1,500?”
You can obfuscate all you want, the statement stands as written.
They go on…”However, over time, the data record for surface temperatures has actually grown, thanks to the digitization of historical books and logs, as well as international data contributions. The 1,500 real-time stations that we rely on today are in locations where NOAA scientists can access information on the 8th of each month”.
They admit again they are using only 1500 real-time stations. What do the other records have to do with that? They are not real-time records. NOAA admits they rely on the 1500 stations. Don’t you get it, they are synthesizing the rest using interpolation and homogenization of the 1500 to create fictitious stations? Those fake stations go into the record, therefore the record is growing with fake stations.
Gordon,
It’s all in the paper. NOAA commissioned a data recovery program that hunted up data from old books and logs, getting data from stations that were no longer operating, as well as others that were, but weren’t part of their monthly stream.
That’s where they get all the added data from – from stations OTHER than the 1500 reporting monthly.
And because these other stations were not on monthly reporting agreement (how can you get real time data from a weather station that stopped operating in 1973?), they did not feed any more data past the last entry that NOAA had received in the late 90s, when this massive effort to collect old data occurred.
Consequently, there are now over 100,000 stations, and more than 40,000 of those with temperature data. Still, only a fraction of these report monthly, about 3000 at this point in time.
Onmce again – weather stations weren’t deleted (NOAA does not control if another country closes their weather station), many old weather station data was collected and added RETROSPECTIVELY, and ASIDE from the data that NOAA was already getting monthly from the 1500 stations at the time.
The data from all these other weather stations were never part of the automated stream, and much had to be added by hand from old papers. THAT’s how you get heaps of extra stations. They beef up the historical record.
I don’t know how else to explain this to you to make it comprehensible.
if I understand it correctly, there probably will be more data for today’s temperatures but they will be added after some time – after handwritten records from obsolete rural stations comes to the center?
That is correct. For example, I saw the other day that there is a project underway to digitize the US Navy’s observations from the WWII era. These kinds of efforts are happening all of the time. Even for stations that have been around for awhile it can take weeks, months, or even years for their reports to make it into the GHCN repository.
Where would be a good place to be besides Hawaii to escape the coming ice age?
Safe zone
https://youtu.be/AwaKlAqbRfY?t=1071
Earl’s Court tube station
Gordon, please read my reply:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/#comment-613051
Institutionalized science and climate whores
https://youtu.be/6O6yJRUycFQ?t=128
DREMT says: “Tim, you’re in denial.”
I’m not going to argue the physics of orbits anymore. It is clear that your opinion and mine are not going to match any time soon. I *will* ask you to seriously consider who is in “denial”. You are claiming that every physicist from Newton forward doesn’t understand physics as well as you do, and that you have discovered a new truth about the motion of the moon that escaped their understanding. If I am in denial, then so is/was every other physicist for the last 400 years.
Do you honestly think you understand this better than Newton? Better than Clausius and Bohr and Einstein and Feynman? Better than the authors of every textbook out there? Better than the NASA engineers who send actual probes to land on the surfaces of other objects in the solar system?
TF, you never were able to “argue the physics of orbits”, because you don’t understand. You don’t even understand the simple analogy of a “ball-on-a-string”. This is NOT about opinions, it is about FACTS. Something that is not rotating about its axis is not rotating about its axis. That’s a FACT. YOU are in denial.
Worse yet, you attempt to pervert reality.
Issac Newton was curious about the subject. He investigated why Moon was not rotating about its axis. To do that, he had to develop calculus so he could mathematically determine how gravity would affect an orbiting body. He proved that in pure orbital motion (no axial rotation) the body would always keep one side facing the inside of the orbit, just as Moon does, and just as the ball-on-a-string does.
Much of institutionalized “science” is corrupt, just as are some commenters here. You’ve been had. You’ve been “folkerted”.
Something that is not rotating about its axis is not rotating about its axis observed anywhere in the same frame. Actually Newton and Tesla proved physically the moon is rotating on its own axis in the inertial frame but is not rotating on its own axis from a certain accelerated frame from which the non-spinners observe.
Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
Tesla’s layman editor argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis. Tesla himself analyzed the moon’s motion with his wheel assembly and found the moon does rotate on its own axis once per orbit of Earth.
Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis, as anybody (but you) reading his articles on the subject would agree.
Anybody (but you) schooled in physics with passing grades reading his articles on the subject of Tesla’s wheel assembly would agree, Tesla found the moon does rotate on its own axis once per orbit of Earth (like Tesla’s ball M about the center).
Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
No Tim, I just think an orbit is as it is defined to be, a rotation of the object about an external axis. You are the one denying that these definitions exist. The “Spinners” have to argue that orbital motion is where an object moves around another whilst keeping the same face always oriented towards some distant fixed star. Dumb.
“Revolution” is synonymous with “rotation”. An object that is rotating about an external axis (without rotating about its own center of mass) keeps the same face always oriented towards the inside of the orbit. Do you disagree? If so, you are wrong.
“You are the one denying that these definitions exist.”
Where are you finding “these definitions”? There is no definition of “orbit” in any physics textbook that agrees with you.
The best you have is a mathematical definition of “rotation” from wikipedia that, as an aside, makes an (incorrect) assertion that orbits are can be described as circular paths (rotations). If you can find something else (and not from a web page for kids, but from a college-level text), please share it. You can’t. They don’t exist.
You certainly have a clever approach, akin to Ptolemy’s epicycles. But like Ptolemy, your theory lacks physical basis. Your arguments are all about “synonyms” (like Clint’s arguments are all about analogies), not about forces and torques and angular momentum. “Rotation” and “revolution” and “orbit” are all related, but they are not identical.
Frustratingly, it is not currently letting me post links. However, this is from the site “thoughtco” and is written by a professor of physics and astronomy:
“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.”
Perhaps somebody can Google the text and post a link to the article for me.
Now we just need you to back up your definition of orbit, where the object keeps the same face always oriented towards some distant fixed star. Be sure to find one that specifies that orientation.
Emphasizing for TF: “Examples of revolution would be a ball on the end of a string, or a planet going around a star.”
Only in the accelerated frame attached to the ball, the ball is not rotating on its own axis as observed by ClintR, DREMT, and other non-spinners. Observed from the inertial frame, the revolving ball spins once on its own axis per orbit or it would wrap the string.
From the frame of reference in which the origin is in the center of the orbit, and the Cartesian axes remain pointing towards distant fixed stars, the ball on a string is rotating about an axis that is external to the ball, and not about its own center of mass.
Emphasizing for Clint from his own source:
“Sometimes people will say that Earth revolves around the Sun. Orbit is more precise and is the motion that can be calculated using the masses, gravity, and the distance between the orbiting bodies.”
“Orbit” is more precise.
“Revolove” is less precise.
“Rotate” is wrong.
https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287
…and emphasizing again for Tim:
“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.”
“Be sure to find one that specifies that orientation.”
That is the crux of the matter. Your very article defines orbit as “the motion that can be calculated using the masses, gravity, and the distance between the orbiting bodies.” It does not specify an orientation because it is the motion of a point (the center of mass). Points don’t have orientation. Can you calculate the orientation of the moon using masses, gravity, and the distance between the earth and moon? What is your formula?
Any description of the *orientation* of the object is *in addition to* the description of its orbit.
My very article defines orbit as the specific case of celestial bodies rotating about an external axis. A body that is rotating about an external axis (without rotating about its own center of mass) keeps the same face always oriented towards the inside of the orbit.
Now we just need you to back up your definition of orbit, Tim, where the object keeps the same face always oriented towards some distant fixed star. Be sure to find one that specifies that orientation.
Just look at the levels of denial the idiots throw out, just to avoid the ball-on-a-string.
DREMT
“Now we just need you to back up your definition of orbit, where the object keeps the same face always oriented towards some distant fixed star. Be sure to find one that specifies that orientation. ”
When Hubble took the Deep Field it spent long periods pointing at the same spot in Ursa Major.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Deep_Field#/media/File%3AHubble_Deep_Field_observing_geometry.svg
THat would be an object revolving around its orbit, but not rotating on its axis.
Again, you are focused on semantics of a specific article — not arguing about the physical nature or the physical causes of motion.
But even your own article can’t support your claim. Yes, the article does say “Examples of revolution would be a ball on the end of a string, or a planet going around a star.”
But it goes on to say that “Sometimes people will say that Earth revolves around the Sun.” So even the author is backtracking from what he casually said earlier about planets “revolving”.
Then he gets specific. “Orbit is more precise and is the motion that can be calculated using the masses, gravity, and the distance between the orbiting bodies.”
As with your Wikipedia source, this source only supports your position if you cherry-pick from within your source and ignore other, more technical information from your source.
Tim, you are the one cherry-picking. The article is about rotation vs. revolution. The main explanatory paragraph for the revolution section of the article is the one I keep quoting! You You are ignoring this, and attempting to shift focus onto other areas, and trying to put words into the author’s mouth. The section I quote is actually more specific a definition than the section you are quoting, which is in fact quite vague!
Entropic Man, yes, I realize that is what the "Spinners" believe is orbiting without axial rotation. Do you understand that the "Non-Spinners" are arguing that "orbiting without axial rotation" is motion in which the same side of the body remains facing towards the inside of the orbit? Do you understand that the "Non-Spinners" have articles supporting their definition and the "Spinners" don’t?
Clint:
A ball on a string is a rotation — it is constrained to move in a circle and is constrained to keep one face toward the center.
A moon moving around a planet is NOT a rotation. A moon is not constrained to move in a circle and not constrained to keep one face toward the center.
So … balls on strings are interesting physics in their own right (as are merry-go-round horses and trains on circular tracks). Balls on strings are not a useful analogy for moons, and provide only limited insights for orbits. Feel free to study balls on strings. If you master that, then feel free to move on and learn how orbits are similar and different.
Ent, you could do some basic research and learn how Hubble positions itself. But, that would require things like “learning physics”, “facing reality”, and “critical thinking”. All the things you avoid.
TF, you are not constrained to be an idiot, yet you continue to be an idiot.
How many times have we explained that the ball-on-a-string is a model of orbital motion. It is a simple analogy to demonstrate that pure orbital motion means the body has one side always facing the inside of the orbit.
Trying to confuse the issue with “elliptical orbits” is just another attempt to avoid reality. In our solar system, orbiting objects have elliptical orbits. But, the orbits vary in eccentricity. That does not affect Kepler’s Laws. There is no reason a body could not have a nearly perfect circular orbit. You’re just grasping at straws, which is futile when trying to avoid reality.
DREMT
” Do you understand that the “Non-Spinners” are arguing that ‘orbiting without axial rotation’ is motion in which the same side of the body remains facing towards the inside of the orbit?
Do you understand that the “Non-Spinners” have articles supporting their definition and the “Spinners” don’t? ”
This DREMT is a pure lie.
You have been shown enough sources explaining that Moon’s spin is the explanation for its same side always ‘facing towards the inside of the orbit’.
But you and your friends-in-denial have discredited, discarded and denied them all.
The very first one is in Newton’s Principia Scientifica Book III Proposition XVII Theorem XV.
Then followed those written by Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace.
The introduction to Lagrange’s French theory paper I did even translate in English.
I could name many other historical sources having proven that; but why should I do that, when you Pseudoskeptics discard everything what does not fit into your narrative?
Numerous other sources can be found in contemporary articles, beginning with the Russian Habibullin in the 1960’s.
You are brazen and stubborn, and lie exactly as do Robertson and ClintR.
This is ashaming.
J.-P. D.
Pompous Bindidon, I am not asking for sources that argue the moon rotates on its own axis. I am aware that there are multitudes of those.
I am asking for sources that specifically outline that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is movement in which the same side of the body remains oriented towards the same distant star, throughout. You will not find any. All you will find are vague definitions such as “an orbit is a path, or trajectory of an object through space.” Nothing specific.
To take a long exposure image a telescope must maintain a constant direction and orientation. To get maximum quality the image formed cannot move relative to the photographic plate or CCD it is being recorded onto.
If you consider the line of sight to the target as it’s axis, the telescope cannot change the direction of that axis, or rotate around it.
Now, perhaps someone might explain how the Hubble telescope took a 100 hour Deep Field exposure of a small area in Ursa Major while spinning.
Yes JD, we know you can’t understand the links you find.
That’s typical of idiots. When you deny the easy-to-understand examples, we know you have no interest in learning.
Ent, again, you could do some basic research and learn how Hubble positions itself. But, that would require things like “learning physics”, “facing reality”, and “critical thinking”. All the things you avoid.
Entropic Man utterly misses the point.
Of course you won’t find this anywhere
“I am asking for sources that specifically outline that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is movement in which the same side of the body remains oriented towards the same distant star, throughout. You will not find any.”
that’s because you made that shit up.
as well as the phrase pure orbital motion.
All you turds have is made up shit.
blob’s in denial of his own position on the matter, whereas Entropic Man acknowledges that for the "Spinners":
"When Hubble took the Deep Field it spent long periods pointing at the same spot in Ursa Major.
That would be an object revolving around its orbit, but not rotating on its axis."
“How many times have we explained that the ball-on-a-string is a model of orbital motion.”
And no matter how many times you bring it up, it is STILL a bad model.
Does a ball on a string always go in a circle? YES!
Does a moon orbiting a planet always go in a circle? NO!
Is a ball on a string constrained to always keep one face toward the center? YES!
Is a moon constrained to keep one face toward the center? NO!
Is a force on a ball on a string due to gravity? NO!
Is a force on a moon due to gravity? YES!
In what way do you think a ball on a strong is an adequate model for an orbiting moon? For an 8 year old first learning about orbits, a ball on a string provides a simple visualization. That is about it.
No I’m not you stupid asshat.
Orbital motion without axial rotation is made up shit, by our local crew of science deniers.
Google it yourself.
Stick a q-tip in one ear, it comes out the other.
“All you will find are vague definitions such as “an orbit is a path, or trajectory of an object through space.” Nothing specific.”
I know you don’t see it, but this is in fact a quite specific definition. The center of mass on an object (like a moon or planet) is a specific, well-defined point. That point moves, tracing out a specific, well-defined path. This definition encompasses circles, and ellipses. And hyperbolas. And ellipses perturbed by other stars/planets/moons/etc.
This definition is as specific as the definition of a line segment (the shortest path between two points) or the definition of a circle (the 2D set of points equidistant from a given fixed point).
The fact that orientation does NOT show up in the definitions shows that orientation is NOT a facet of the definition. No one ever lists all the properties that are NOT part of a definition.
Tim, blob, whether you want to accept it or not, the “Spinner” position is that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is where an object moves around another whilst keeping the same face always oriented towards some distant fixed star.
The “Non-Spinner” position is that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is where an object moves around another whilst keeping the same face always oriented towards the inside of the orbit.
The difference is, we have support for our definition, and you don’t.
TF, you haven’t learned a thing. Maybe the 41st time will help:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/#comment-613471
“The difference is, we have support for our definition, and you dont.”
FALSE.
This illustrates the inherent dishonesty of your argument.
To make your case you need to continually ignore the facts that are shown to you, and pretend you never saw them and that they dont exist.
Tim and I and others have shown you ORBIT definitions that are textbook, standard, and DO NOT agree with yours.
If you straight lie, to continue your argument, then youve lost the argument.
Repeatedly making an obviously dishonest argument is simply TROLLING.
Well, it’s been over 12 hours since I said:
‘I am asking for sources that specifically outline that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is movement in which the same side of the body remains oriented towards the same distant star, throughout. You will not find any. All you will find are vague definitions such as “an orbit is a path, or trajectory of an object through space.” Nothing specific.”
Nobody has come up with anything. Guess that’s that.
“Nobody has come up with anything. Guess thats that.”
You mean if in a 12 hour period, people dont show you what has ALREADY been shown to you dozens of times before, then youve NOT seen it and doesnt count?!!
How childish you are!
Nothing vague about what TRAJECTORY means. You have been shown its definition before.
Your ignorance of scientific terms does not make them wrong.
Meanwhile, when you say “The difference is, we have support for our definition, and you dont.”
This is not only a transparent LIE, it contradicts what YOU have already admitted many times, that standard Astronomy DOES NOT agree with you.
“I am aware that the conventional view disagrees, and not remotely bothered.”
Still nothing…and actually it’s been more like 20 hours.
DREMT,
“the “Spinner” position is that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is where an object moves around another whilst keeping the same face always oriented towards some distant fixed star.”
Nope, that is not my position, I do not use the term orbital motion without axial rotation except when arguing with you science deniers.
My position is that orbiting and rotating around an axis within an object are two independent motions, and that the Moon does both.
Your failure to understand my position is noted.
Your failure to understand simple astronomy is also noted.
Your abject failure to tell the truth is also noted.
Yeah, that’s understandable, you make shit up and expect to find support for it, where?
blob, you are as hilariously aggressive as you are…not so bright.
“My position is that orbiting and rotating around an axis within an object are two independent motions, and that the Moon does both.”
Indeed, that is your position. So, as “orbiting” and “rotating around an axis” are two independent motions, you must be able to answer the following question:
How does an object that is “orbiting” but not “rotating around its own axis” remain oriented, as it moves?
DREMT,
You are one stupid mother fucker, we have been through all this crap.
“blob, you are as hilariously aggressive as you are…not so bright.”
Not so bright is way better than dumber than a box of hammers.
“Indeed, that is your position. So, as “orbiting” and “rotating around an axis” are two independent motions, you must be able to answer the following question:
How does an object that is “orbiting” but not “rotating around its own axis” remain oriented, as it moves?”
Think you are so clever that you can post a question that I can’t answer, try again, bag-o-hammers.
The only way is artificially, like a man-made satellite.
Unless you can provide an example of a natural satellite that is orbiting but not rotating.
“How does an object that is ‘orbiting’ but not ‘rotating around its own axis’ remain oriented, as it moves?”
Newton’s First Law for Rotation.
https://www.webassign.net/question_assets/buelemphys1/chapter10/section10dash9.pdf
“an object that is spinning tends to spin with a constant angular velocity, unless it is acted on by a nonzero net torque”
IOW if angular velocity is 0 wrt to the inertial frame, it will REMAIN 0 if no torques are applied.
How does an object that is “orbiting” but not “rotating around its own axis” remain oriented, as it moves? In other words, what way does it face throughout the orbit?
For the dozenth time and not last because none of the TEAM seems to retain contradictory information.
Wiki: Orbit
“In physics, an orbit is the gravitationally curved trajectory of an object,[1] such as the trajectory of a planet around a star or a natural satellite around a planet. Normally, orbit refers to a regularly repeating trajectory, although it may also refer to a non-repeating trajectory. To a close approximation, planets and satellites follow elliptic orbits, with the center of mass being orbited at a focal point of the ellipse,[2] as described by Kepler’s laws of planetary motion.”
“Trajectory | Definition of Trajectory by Merriam-Websterwww.merriam-webster.com dictionary trajectory
1 : the curve that a body (such as a planet or comet in its orbit or a rocket) describes in space”
Wiki Trajectory.
“A trajectory or flight path is the path that an object with mass in motion follows through space as a function of time.”
It specifies no orientation or angular velocity.
https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/nasa-knows/what-is-orbit-58.html
Again no mention of a required Orientation.
It couldnt be more clear what an ORBIT is now, unless one is determined to remain ignorant.
blob’s in a tricky situation right now. If he answers my question honestly, he will be forced to admit that he thinks that an object that is “orbiting without axial rotation” remains oriented towards a distant star whilst it moves. In which case his earlier statement that this wasn’t his position will be shown to be false. I expect he will continue to try and wriggle his way out of it, but it will be interesting to see how.
Meanwhile, as we approach a full 24 hours since I asked for it, nobody has been able to provide any sources that specifically outline that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is movement in which the same side of the body remains oriented towards the same distant star, throughout. They will not find any. All they will find are vague definitions such as “an orbit is a path, or trajectory of an object through space.” Nothing specific.
Of course, such definitions are entirely consistent with the idea that an orbit is a rotation about an external axis. After all, an object that is rotating about an external axis is still moving along a path, or trajectory. It’s just that the “rotation about an external axis” part provides the information about orientation that is missing from some of the other “orbit” definitions.
I’m not in a tricky situation, I am refusing you use your made up bullshit.
There is no such fucking thing as orbital motion without axial rotation in the natural world.
Still waiting for you to provide:
1) A definition of rotation, where the axis is within the object.
2) An example of a natural object that is orbiting but not rotating about an internal axis.
3) Explain the libration of the Moon.
Anything from the Mooncalf Brigade?
Wriggle, wriggle, blob. Answer the question:
How does an object that is “orbiting” but not “rotating around its own axis” remain oriented, as it moves? In other words, what way does it face throughout the orbit?
DREMT,
Not so fast, first provide an example of such a natural object, then I can observe where it is orientated.
You can’t, so it’s an imaginary problem that you have made up.
It’s all made up shit with you.
Why don’t you provide real life examples of what you think is going on?
It’s great fun watching you squirm.
How does an object that is “orbiting” but not “rotating around its own axis” remain oriented, as it moves? In other words, what way does it face throughout the orbit?
The same fucking direction dimwit!
Now provide an example of a natural object that behaves that way.
Or, a definition of rotation where the axis is within the object rotating.
Or go on with your fantasy made up physics.
“The same fucking direction dimwit!”
So, to be clear, you are arguing that an object that is “orbiting but not rotating on its own axis” remains pointing in the same direction whilst it orbits, or to put it another way, remains oriented towards the same distant star, whilst it orbits.
In other words, your earlier statement that this wasn’t your position, was false.
It’s only false because I am using your made up false physics terms.
The term orbital motion without axial rotation is your made up shit, nothing to do with anything real.
you haven’t even defined rotation, so you have no argument that the Moon doesn’t rotate until you define your term.
It’s fun arguing with someone who is dumber than a bag-o-hammers.
Now can I have that definition?
An example of a natural object orbiting but not rotating?
Can I have fries with all that?
Nobody can find a definition ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ is movement in which the same side of the body remains oriented towards the same distant star, throughout. They will not find any.”
And none is needed. Strawman alert!
Orbit is a path thru space. No orientation is specified. It can be anything as long as it obeys Newtons Laws.
Whereas in your fictional definition, you claim that orientation to the center of orbit IS SPECIFIED.
That is fantasy.
blob, you lied about your position, earlier. Why was that?
DREMT,
I did not lie, my position is still that orbital motion without axial rotation is a made up lie by you. I can’t be lying about something that isn’t real.
That’s why you can’t find anyone that will use that term.
So if anything it’s a lie upon a lie.
You are the one that is lying.
Yes, you lied earlier. You said “nope, that is not my position” when it turned out that it was your position. So why did you lie about your position?
All the planets have different spin angular velocities.
Newton solved for their orbital path thru space with his law of gravity. He could account for all of their orbital periods, and explained their elliptical shape.
His work did nothing whatsoever to address their axial rotation speeds or orientations.
If anybody is claiming that an ORBIT has a specified orientation, they are wrong.
If anyone claims Newton found that orbiting objects should have a specified orientation, they are wrong.
If anyone can hazard a guess as to why blob lied about his position, just let me know.
DRMET,
“Yes, you lied earlier. You said nope, that is not my position when it turned out that it was your position. So why did you lie about your position?”
Let me clarify that for you, you stupid ignorant cocksucker.
My position is that there is no such thing as orbital motion without axial rotation.
But when pressed to answer your fucking question, yes I said that an object that was orbital motion without axial rotation, keeps it’s orientation in one direction.
That was not a statement of my position, you stupid little troll, that was an answer to your question.
What’s the matter, you can’t keep your lies straight.
That’s right, blob, you initially said that your position was not that an object which is “orbiting and not “rotating about its axis” keeps the same face pointing towards the same distant star (same direction)…but when I pressed you on it, you eventually agreed that your position is that an object which is “orbiting” and not “rotating about its axis” keeps the same face pointing towards the same distant star (same direction).
So my question to you is…why did you initially lie about your position?
DREMT,
For the record, this is my position.
“My position is that orbiting and rotating around an axis within an object are two independent motions, and that the Moon does both.”
Note that I do not use the term orbital motion without axial rotation.
And my position on that is that there is no natural example of a satellite that does that, and it is made up shit by the crew of deniers posting here.
.
How about you define axial rotation when the axis is within the body rotating?
Until you do that, all your arguments are circular
And DREMT the Troll shows his true colors.
Little effort to get at the truth. Lots of effort to humiliate.
nobody can find the definition of “orbital motion without axial rotation”
OMG.
Sure. Nor can anyone find the Definition of
“Half Decaf Latte with Skim Milk, Carmel Machiato and Chocolate flakes”
But I challenge you. Youve got 12 h.
IDK why I need to explain this to anyone, but dictionaries have definitions of words, like
Orbit, Axial, or Caramel
Its then up to users of the English language to put these defined words together in combinations to make phrases and sentences with meaning.
For most people, the meaning of these combinations of words can be determined from the definitions of the words used, and their context.
But not, apparently, DREMT.
bob, nobody is saying that there is a natural satellite that orbits with the same face always pointing towards a distant star, i.e in the same direction. I don’t know why you keep challenging us to find one. Nevertheless, trying to pretend that you think this means the concept “orbital motion without axial rotation” does not exist is a bit silly, given that when I asked you how an object that was “orbiting” and not “rotating on its own axis” would remain oriented whilst it orbited, you eventually responded “in the same direction”. So clearly you acknowledge that the concept exists because you were able to answer the question.
I don’t know why I need to explain this to anyone, but dictionaries have definitions of words, like “Orbital”, “Motion”, “Without”, “Axial” or “Rotation”. It’s then up to users of the English language to put these defined words together in combinations to make phrases and sentences with meaning. For most people, the meaning of these combinations of words can be determined from the definitions of the words used, and their context.
But not, apparently, bob.
DREMPT,
Still we wait for your definition of rotation in the case where the axis is within the object.
Without that it is impossible to understand what you mean by orbital motion without axial rotation.
Can you give an example of an Astronomer using that term?
How about one using pure orbital motion?
Also can you give your definition of an inertial reference frame, you seem to fail to understand what an inertial reference frame is.
Care to explain your position using terms the way Astronomers do?
Didn’t think so.
I don’t have separate definitions to astronomers, bob.
Scroll up to Tim Folkerts comment at 11:12 AM, February 11. There you will find a link to an article written by a professor of physics and astronomy. There he defines both “revolution” and “rotation”, in other words “orbital motion” and “axial rotation”. I agree with those definitions. He defines revolution as a rotation about an external axis. An object that is rotating about an external axis (without rotating about its own center of mass) keeps the same side of the body oriented towards the inside of the orbit, whilst it moves.
It is in fact the “Spinners” on this website that define terms differently. They want to hide behind vague definitions of “orbit” which don’t reveal the orientation of the orbiting object, ignoring that without the information on the orientation of the orbiting object, you cannot correctly separate “orbital motion” from “axial rotation”.
“I don’t know why I need to explain this to anyone, but dictionaries have definitions of words, like ‘Orbital’, ‘Motion’, ‘Without’, ‘Axial’ or ‘Rotation’.”
Right. But you do need to explain why you choose to IGNORE the plain definitions of those words, and instead simply make up your own,
The definition of ORBIT can be found in multiple dictionaries, and you were shown a sampling.
Yet you IGNORE these and make up your own definition.
The definition of Rotation is found in multiple dictionaries to be a ‘Circular Motion around a point’.
Yet you IGNORE these and make up your own definition. No an elliptical orbit is NOT a circular motion around a point.
Thus your argument has descended into TOTAL DISHONESTY. It is a lie. It is as joke.
Over 48 hours now since I asked for sources that specifically outline that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is movement in which the same side of the body remains oriented towards the same distant star, throughout. They will not find any. All they will find are vague definitions such as “an orbit is a path, or trajectory of an object through space.” Nothing specific.
“orbital motion without axial rotation”
As expected, DREMT is literally unable to do what a 5th grader can do, which is put these defined words together and understand what that means.
So I think it is safe to assume now that they have no support for their position. The “Spinners” think “orbital motion without axial rotation” is movement in which the same side of the body remains oriented towards the same distant star, throughout, but they can’t back it up.
All they have are vague definitions of “paths” and “trajectories” which don’t specify any orientation for the object.
DREMT doesnt seem to understand how debates work. When you dont make your case, and you are forced to make up your own facts, you are not winning the debate.
In fact, by resorting to such dishonest tactics, you are admitting defeat. You are admitting that you cannot win based on facts.
He is like the stupid sore loser kids we all met, who would move the line, say they were never touched, change the rules, all because they could not possibly have lost the game.
Hes one of those jerk kids, who never quite grew up.
Neutral observers take note.
“I dont have separate definitions to astronomers, bob.”
And DREMTs own posts show his departure from truth.
”
Tidal locking results in the Moon rotating about its axis in about the same time it takes to orbit the Earth.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
February 8, 2021 at 6:02 PM
I am aware that the conventional view disagrees, and not remotely bothered.”
72 hours…
DREMPT,
No one is marking a clock to fulfill your fantasies.
“He defines revolution as a rotation about an external axis.”
Yes, any astronomer would do that.
But this is the shit you keep making up, you can’t find a source that agrees with you on this part. But you want us to search the internet for you.
“An object that is rotating about an external axis (without rotating about its own center of mass) keeps the same side of the body oriented towards the inside of the orbit, whilst it moves.”
This is just impossible for an object to do.
An object must rotate to keep the same side of the body towards the inside of the object as it orbits.
It’s impossible, that’s my final answer.
blob, that part is backed up by the article on rotation around a fixed axis that you can find on Wikipedia:
“Purely rotational motion occurs if every particle in the body moves in a circle about a single line. This line is called the axis of rotation. Then the radius vectors from the axis to all particles undergo the same angular displacement at the same time. The axis of rotation need not go through the body.”
or Madhavi Fig, 2(b). Or any online transmographer. That part is agreed to by many of those on your own side of the debate. It’s not in doubt. Try again.
“Purely rotational motion occurs if every particle in the body moves in a circle about a single line.”
As we have been saying! So we can assume you now agree that elliptical orbit of Moon cannot be a ‘pure rotation’.
“Then the radius vectors from the axis to all particles undergo the same angular displacement at the same time.”
Again, with its Libration, the Moon’s particles are clearly NOT undergoing the same angular displacement at the same time.
Thank the lord, the argument, by D’s own words, is over.
No response from bob, guess he stands corrected.
While the argument is clearly over, unfortunately the trolling and attention seeking seems not to be.
Ah, I see…he is carrying on the argument down here, instead:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/#comment-616139
Forecast of a powerful stratospheric intrusion in the Midwest in the coming days.
https://i.ibb.co/pWMPk1t/gfs-toz-NA-f048.png
https://i.ibb.co/MPMZkW3/gfs-hgt-trop-NA-f048.png
DREMT
From your earlier post.
“February 8, 2021 at 8:03 PM
The animation shows this.
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif”
Actually, this gif is useful. The moon on the left is rotating about an axis in the center of the white circle, and not about its own center of mass. The moon on the right is doing this too, but it is also rotating on its own axis, in the opposite direction to its orbital motion, once per orbit.
Your post described the Moon on the Right as rotating once on its axis once per orbit. ”
This is the same motion required for the Hubble telescope to remain pointing at a distant stellar or galactic target.
To take a sharp long exposure image of distant galaxies the Hubble telescope cannot rotate around any axis. Yet you maintain that it is rotating on its axis once per orbit.
Please explain this paradox.
DREMT
There is one possible solution.
https://esahubble.org/videos/hubblecast78b/#:~:
The Hubble Telescope is in a 97 minute orbit inclined 28.5 degrees.
The Hubble would be able to take good images if the universe rotated around the Earth every 97 minutes exactly in synch with Hubble’s orbit.
Ent, do you even know what a “gyroscope” is?
You have no concept of how Hubble positions itself. You found something you don’t understand, so you “believe” it is “proof” of your false beliefs!
You’re just like the other idiots. Did you all attend the same indoctrination center?
entropic…”The Hubble would be able to take good images if the universe rotated around the Earth every 97 minutes exactly in synch with Hubbles orbit”.
Hubble can rotate on its local axis using 3 positional gyroscopes and internal wheels that counter it’s forward motion to produce a torque. Using that system it can track a target for some time independently of its orbital motion.
Due to the essential absence of air resistance at its altitude the torque does not affect its forward momentum.
However, it is in a low Earth orbit where there is some air. Eventually that drag will force it lower and it is expected to crash somewhere between 2030 and 2059 unless steps are taken to adjust its orbit, or capture it.
I would not want to be in the vicinity if it crashes with a 1 ton mirror.
There is no paradox, Entropic Man. All that is required is for you to understand the "Non-Spinner" position. You have just demonstrated conclusively that you do not.
OK, so here we go again:
If the "moon on the left" is rotating about an axis in the center of the white circle, and not rotating about its own center of mass, then the "moon on the right" is rotating about an axis in the center of the white circle, and rotating about its own center of mass, once per orbit, in the opposite direction to the orbital motion.
All you need to be able to do is mentally add two motions together. Can you do that?
Except the Moon on the left is rotating around it’s own center of mass.
Since your proposition is false, your whole argument is just a turd rotating around the toilet bowl on its way down the drain.
So by your rules an object which faces the Earth as it orbits has zero rotation.
An object like Hubble during the Deep Field exposure has zero rotation due to its orbit and 1 unit of rotation less because of its pointing and therefore has a rotation of -1 units.
The standard unit for rotation is the moon, which circles the Earth in 27.3 days.
The Hubble spacecraft rotated at a rate one rotation every -1 rotation units or -27.3 days.
Any object which is not rotating relative to the inertial reference frame of relative to the rest of the universe is also rotating once every -27.3 days.
Indeed, the universe itself is rotating once every -27.3 days.
Somewhere William of Occam is laughing.
I am laughing, at your abject failure to understand the “Non-Spinner” position.
Perhaps because when you try to apply the “Non -Spinner” position to reality it doesn’t fit. You get absurd outcomes like the universe rotating in the opposite direction to the Moon every 27.3 days.
I think we’ve discovered why the universe is expanding. At the edge of a visible universe 93 gigalightyears across, rotating every 27.3 days, the centrifugal force must be enormous.
You do not get an outcome like the universe is rotating in the opposite direction to the moon every 27.3 days. That does not logically follow from what I’m saying, and you are attacking a straw man. I don’t know how you people get yourselves so confused!
Try reading my 7:07 PM comment. Maybe that will help.
It doesn’t help.
It might help somebody whose mind isn’t closed.
It won’t.
How would you know? Your mind is closed.
It is closed to incorrect science such as from DREMT 7:07 pm.
No, your mind is just closed.
Ent, I don’t even know where to start.
I think you just won “Idiot of the Week”.
Hubble and Moon have different orbital periods because they have different distances.
And, that’s just the start….
entropic…” The standard unit for rotation is the moon, which circles the Earth in 27.3 days.
The Hubble spacecraft rotated at a rate one rotation every -1 rotation units or -27.3 days.
Any object which is not rotating relative to the inertial reference frame of relative to the rest of the universe is also rotating once every -27.3 days.
Indeed, the universe itself is rotating once every -27.3 days”.
***
Who said the standard unit for rotation is that of the Moon? It rotates about the Earth, which we call revolution, or orbiting, but it does not rotate on its own axis. There is not a shred of scientific evidence that it does.
Hubble orbits a little over 15 times per day. Where do you get the -1 figure for it? Is that a minus 1 or is the negative sign a hyphen?
Your idea about reference frames has gotten you carried off into a space that differs from the space we normally enjoy on Earth. You have the wrong concept of inertial frames, which are imaginary. You seem incapable of thinking in the real space and dimensions where we must live.
Proof of what I am saying is your claim that the universe rotates every -27+ days. You really need to be de-programmed. See if you can find a good awareness seminar to bring you back to Earth…literally.
“There is not a shred of scientific evidence that it does.”
Unfortunately for Gordon, long ago Tesla provided the scientific evidence that it does with the simple physics analysis of a wheel & ball M assembly.
Ball4 tries to pervert reality.
But, he fails again.
“All that is required is for you to understand the “Non-Spinner” position.”
We understand. You want to define “orbit” to mean a “rotation” about the barycenter”. We (and every scientist since Newton) simply disagree that the “non-spinner” position is the best way to describe orbits. There are many reasons not to like your definition. A couple key reasons are:
1) “Rotation” is strictly a circle. Orbits are not circles. So immediately you must abandon an actual “rotation” and kludge together something that is *like* a rotation but is not actually a rotation.
2) A moon does not strictly face toward the barycenter; it librates. So again you have to kludge together explanation for why the moon’s orientation is *like* a rotation but is not actually a rotation.
IF you disagree with either of these, then explain PRECISELY how you abandon a pure “rotation” to accurately describe ellipses and libration.
Tim, ftop_t presented the Desmos work which debunks your talking points, I linked you to it, and you were unable to dispute his math. I had assumed that you would not have the audacity to raise the same points again, but I clearly underestimated your intellectual dishonesty.
ftop_t proved he did not understand inertial reference frames and relative motion.
False, but irrelevant to the points being discussed anyway.
SGW is correct, ftop_t can’t correctly handle ref. frames in desmos math and bungles relativity just like DREMT.
False, but irrelevant to the points being discussed.
If it helps you understand, Entropic Man, basically for the “moon on the right” the axial rotation is off-setting the orbital motion (as they are in opposing directions) so that the object ends up facing the same way throughout the orbit.
Yep when his car stops at a light, D thinks hes still driving forward…and backwards at the same speed, and its a million miles an hour!
Troll Nate, every time we think you can’t get any stupider, you go and amaze us again.
Idiot.
And on cue, the mess leaving, ad-hom tosser shows up.
Yes you do, troll Nate.
You also bring with you your willingness to distort reality.
1) What is being argued is that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is where an object moves around another whilst keeping the same face always oriented towards the inside of the orbit.
2) This means the outside (to the orbit) face of the object points through e.g. N, W, S, E and back to N as it completes each orbit.
3) It is defined this way because that is what the motion “rotation about an external axis” involves. An object that is “rotating about an external axis” (without rotating about its own center of mass) always keeps the same face oriented towards the inside of the orbit, whilst it moves. The particles comprising the object move in concentric circles about the center of revolution.
4) Axial rotation and orbital motion are two completely separate motions.
5) So, when you add axial rotation to “orbital motion…” as described in 1), in the opposite direction to the orbital motion, and at the same rate, the two motions offset each other. The object would have faced through e.g. N, W, S, E and back to N without the axial rotation. With the opposing axial rotation, as the object moves CCW in its orbit from 12 o’clock to 9 o’clock, for example, where before it would have faced N and then W, it now faces N at 12 o’clock and remains facing N at 9 o’clock. This is because it has orbited CCW 90 degrees, and rotated on its own axis CW 90 degrees, at the same rate.
Dremt…”1) What is being argued is that orbital motion without axial rotation is where an object moves around another whilst keeping the same face always oriented towards the inside of the orbit.
2) This means the outside (to the orbit) face of the object points through e.g. N, W, S, E and back to N as it completes each orbit”.
***
I think we agreed earlier that the reason for the re-orientation is that the Moon is translating in its orbit. Normally, we thing of a body rotating about an external axis as being attached physically to the external axis. With the Moon, that is not the case. It is translating in a linear direction with its path of translation being continually adjusted into an orbit by Earth’s gravitational field.
I am not arguing with your point that the Moon is rotating about the Earth as its external axis, I think your point is reasonable and accurate within the definitions offered for rotation. I also won’t apply my definition of curvilinear translation, to keep the peace. However, the motion of the Moon in its orbit is translation.
Any translating body when turning on a curve changes its orientation without rotating about its COG or axis. It’s a natural phenomenon just as it is with the Moon. If the Moon was suddenly released from it orbit, by suddenly turning off gravity, it would continue translating in a straight line and still would not rotate on a local axis.
To counter Entropic’s point about inertial frames, if a body is not rotating about a local axis in one reference frame it is not turning about a local axis in any reference frame. Mathematicians, philosophers, and theorists might argue but reality must prevail. Rotation about a local axis requires local angular velocity/momentum, and if that is absent in one reference frame it cannot suddenly appear in any other reference frame.
…it cannot suddenly appear in any other reference frame without proper physical analysis back to the inertial frame since angular and linear momentum are conserved between frames.
Ball4 has no clue about the issue. He’s just babbling incoherently, as usual.
“To counter Entropics point about inertial frames, if a body is not rotating about a local axis in one reference frame it is not turning about a local axis in any reference frame.
Only if the local reference frame is not rotating.
Your local reference frame is the Earth/Moon axis which is rotating every 27.3 days relative to the inertial reference frame and the rest of the universe.
Since the local reference frame is rotating, so is the Moon.
Relative to the inertial reference frame and the rest of the universe, the moon is rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, and not about its own center of mass.
No. It is revolving around the Earth/Moon barycentre and rotating around its own axis.
Since the period of revolution and period of rotation are the same, you get the appearance of the Moon not rotating.
In practice, the physics of angular momentum, coriolis force, centrifugal force etc are all consistent with a Moon rotating on its axis every 27.3 days.
“No. It is revolving around the Earth/Moon barycentre and rotating around its own axis.”
Not if “revolving” means what it is defined to mean – a rotation about an external axis. An object that is rotating about an external axis (without rotating about its own center of mass) already moves with the same side always oriented towards the inside of the orbit. So if the moon were “revolving” around the Earth/Moon barycenter and rotating around its own axis (center of mass) then we would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
Ent, you are now clinging to that “27.3 days” like it means something. That is Moon’s orbital period. It is NOT proof of Moon axial rotation.
If you understood pure orbital motion, you would know that is what Moon is doing. If Moon were REALLY rotating about its axis, we would know. We would see all sides of it.
You don’t understand the physics, don’t want to learn, and only want to believe in the nonsense that came from astrology. That ain’t science.
If Moon were REALLY rotating about its axis more or less than once per orbit, we on Earth would know. We would see all sides of it.
Ball4 is just here to troll, again.
“Any translating body when turning on a curve changes its orientation without rotating about its COG or axis.”
You seemed to be defining translation as the ‘way a car drives’. That is, with the front of the vehicle always pointing forward in the direction of motion.
But that is not universally how bodies move. Cannonballs have no front or back and dont need to point in the direction of motion. In billiards, the balls move by rolling, they have no front or back that points in the direction of motion.
So translation is defined as movement of a bodies center of mass thru space. Nothing is required of the bodies orientation.
That is separately described by rotation.
Gordon shrieks:
Any translating body when turning on a curve changes its orientation without rotating about its COG or axis.
Gordon STILL has not learned the proper definition of translation. A translating body NEVER changes its orientation. EVER.
Every physics text book, kinematics text book, university kinematics lecture notes, university physics lecture notes, university dynamics lecture notes, they ALL disagree with Gordon’s made up definition of curvilinear translation.
In physics and kinematics the concept is the same, with the basic idea that a translating object merely changes its location, without changing its orientation, i.e., no line in a translating rigid body rotates. Ever. Never ever.
Even the concept of translation in geometry indicates that Translation is a term used in geometry to describe a function that moves an object a certain distance. The object is not altered in any other way. It is not rotated, reflected or re-sized.
Get with the program, Gordon. You are making yourself look ignorant.
If you can’t even get this simple concept straight, why should we listen to you expound on more complex issues? We shouldn’t.
Gordon gushes:
I also won’t apply my definition of curvilinear translation, to keep the peace. However, the motion of the Moon in its orbit is translation.
The motion of the moon in orbit is NOT translation. You just applied your definition of translation because you do not understand the concept of translation, in particular when the object follows a curve. The moon in its orbit continually changes its orientation, therefor does not translate.
‘Please explain this paradox.”
Do you now understand why there’s no paradox, Entropic Man?
Nope.
The Moon and the universe are rotating at different rates.
If the Moon is not rotating the universe must be rotating with all the physical consequences.
Since we do not see the physical consequences of a rapidly rotating universe it must be the Moon that is rotating.
Whether it is rotating on its axis of around a barycentre is irrelevant. The key is that by all the physical measures which define rotation, the Moon is rotating.
The moon is rotating…just not on its own axis. The argument has always been that the moon is not rotating on its own axis (i.e. about its own center of mass). If you agree that the moon is rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, but not on its own axis, then our discussion is over.
However, it seems like you are still confused, because you answered “nope” when I asked if you understood why there is no paradox. I explained it all in my 7:07 PM comment, and numbered all the points. What numbered point do you not understand, or disagree with?
We agree that the Moon is rotating relative to the Sun, the stars, the rest of the universe and the inertial reference frame.
The only remaining point of difference is whether the Moon is rotating around its axis and revolving around the barycentre, or just revolving. That is more about semantics than physics.
Erm…no it isn’t “about semantics”, Entropic Man. It is a completely fundamental physical difference that is the basis of this entire debate. It is just that you are finally starting to realize what the debate actually is, rather than relentlessly attacking straw men, which is what you have been doing up until now.
The debate is:
Is the moon orbiting and rotating on its own axis (“Spinners”)
vs.
Is the moon just orbiting, and not rotating on its own axis (“Non-Spinners”)
The moon is orbiting and rotating on its own axis observed from inertial frame (“Spinners”).
The moon is just orbiting, and not rotating on its own axis observed from the accelerated frame (“Non-Spinners”).
It is that simple.
Wrong, Ball4. The “Non-Spinner’s” position is that the moon is just orbiting, and not rotating on its own axis observed from the inertial frame.
Which is wrong since if the moon were not rotating on its own internal axis once per orbit in the inertial frame, then we would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
That depends on how you define the motion “orbit”, as explained ad nauseam.
As incorrectly explained ad nauseam.
Whether you accept it or not, Ball4, everyone here has an opinion on what way an object that is “orbiting” but not “rotating on its own axis” remains oriented whilst it orbits.
Whether you accept it or not, DREMT, everyone here can observe on what way an object such as the moon or ball on string that is both “orbiting” and “rotating on its own axis” once per orbit remains oriented same face to center axis whilst it orbits. ftop_t demonstrated that motion here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
You have linked to ftop_t’s Desmos work, which proves you wrong. It shows an object that is orbiting whilst keeping the same face always oriented towards the center of revolution. Only the external axis rotation slider is moving, in order to make that happen.
Not wrong just confusing DREMT, since the desmos slider is set to zero rotations in ftop_t’s accelerated frame math which is the frame from where DREMT observes.
From the desmos inertial frame, the nonzero radius object motion shown is same as an object such as the moon or ball on string that is both “orbiting” and “rotating on its own axis” once per orbit remaining oriented same face to center axis whilst it orbits.
From the Desmos inertial frame, it shows an object that is orbiting whilst keeping the same face always oriented towards the center of revolution. Only the external axis rotation slider is moving, in order to make that happen.
…and that’s because an object that orbits another whilst keeping the same face always oriented towards the center of revolution is an example of "orbital motion without axial rotation". The object is "rotating about an external axis" and not rotating about its own center of mass.
“The key is that by all the physical measures which define rotation, the Moon is rotating.”
Wrong Ent. Moon is only orbiting. You BELIEVE it is rotating about its axis because you believe in nonsense. You oppose reality and critical thinking. You are anti-science.
If our moon was only orbiting an external axis and not rotating on its own internal axis, then we would see all sides of it. ClintR doesn’t believe ClintR’s own eyes in reality see only one side.
That depends on how you define the motion “orbiting”, as explained ad nauseam.
I don’t define “orbiting”, DREMT, I’ll correctly leave that up to Merriam-Webster and comment correctly using their defn.s of “orbiting” unlike DREMT.
So answer this question, Ball4.
How does an object that is orbiting, but not rotating on its own axis, remain oriented whilst it orbits? In other words, which direction does it face throughout the orbit?
Already answered both:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/#comment-615003
That is not an answer to the question.
bdg…”Because the photoshopped graph at 30:00 is so egregiously wrong and misleading at best and because it serves as a central thesis for his talking point Ill respectfully ask that you have Heller correct it and resubmit for review”.
Heller explained what he had done. He overlaid the 1974 NCAR graph, which showed significant cooling from 1940 – 1970, over the current GISS graph which has erased that cooling. The two together make it apparent that GISS has erased the cooling.
Heller is no dummy. He has a masters degree in electrical engineering and he has worked at the top of his field, for companies like Intel, as an expert data analyst.
Why do you persist in defending the blatant cheaters at GISS? The alarmist site, realclimate, is run by the current leader of GISS, Gavin Schmidt, a mathematician, and his partner, Michael Mann, a geologist.
Mann was featured front and centre in the Climategate email scandal interfering with peer review. He was also identified as the author of ‘the trick’, a devious device designed to hide declining temperatures. Schmidt defended him on realclimate.
When Judith Curry began questioning the alarmist meme, Mann used sexually derogatory insults against Judith. These are the kinds of creeps you are defending. Either you are seriously naive or a creep yourself.
GR said: He overlaid the 1974 NCAR graph, which showed significant cooling from 1940 – 1970, over the current GISS graph which has erased that cooling.
No he didn’t. You can view the GISTEMPv3 northern hemisphere data here.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/graph_data/Hemispheric_Temperature_Change/graph.png
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/graph_data/Hemispheric_Temperature_Change/graph.csv
Heller’s red line looks nothing like what GISTEMP actually published. In fact, GISTEMP actually shows more cooling than what the NCAR graph shows.
And I still haven’t been able to verify the blue line claimed to be from NCAR so I cannot eliminate it as being wrong too.
FUTURE CLIMATE WILL COME DOWN TO BASICS WHICH ARE
SOLAR ACTIVITY
OCEANIC SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURES
VOLCANIC ACTIVITY
STATE OF PDO/AMO AND ENSO.
GEO MAGETIC FIELD STRENGTH
AO/AAO/NAO TO NAME SOME.
Those items will determine the future trend in the climate. One has to remember that SOLAR favored global warming up to year 2005.
while ENSO on balance has been more in a EL NINO mode, and MAJOR VOLCANIC ACTIVITY has been absent.
As I always say time will tell the verdict is still out.
IN RELATION TO MY ABOVE POST THOSE ITEMS WILL THEN DETERMNE CLOUD COVER,SNOW COVER AND SEA ICE VALUES .
These will then determine the direction of the climate, CO2 not with standing.
I still find it hard to believe a trace gas is going to determine the climate unless the water vapor /CO2 positive correlation is extreme.
I still find it hard to believe a trace gas is going to determine the climate unless the water vapor /CO2 positive correlation is extreme.
Tambora lofted 100 MtSO2 into the upper atmosphere and caused the year without a summer in 1816. Humans loft 350x that amount of CO2 into the atmosphere…every single year. If you don’t think trace gases matter then you should probably take volcanic activity off your list.
Ice age in 30 years
https://youtu.be/9s63WUwwTVc
Interesting. One thing I agree with him on is the amount of clouds are very important when it comes to the climate.
Very important but clouds offer high degree of buffering resulting in a highly constrained albedo:
“The satellite observations obtained over this period (last 40 years) indicate that the albedo of Earth is highly constrained, restricting the degree to which the albedo varies over space and limits the variability of albedo over time…The small variability observed suggests a high degree of buffering by the albedo of clouds.”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2014RG000449
A celestial body in pure orbital motion, around a host, always has one side facing the inside of the orbit. This is the motion Moon exhibits–pure orbital motion. And this is also the motion demonstrated by a ball-on-a-string.
If the celestial body is also rotating on its axis, then all sides could be seen from inside the orbit, as the body rotated. This is the motion Earth exhibits–orbital motion AND rotating about its axis.
Because the above are established fundamentals of orbital motion, arguments to the contrary are easily debunked.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Except the motion of a ball on a string and the motion of the Moon are two different motions, so both of them can’t be pure orbital motion.
Either that, or every kind of motion is pure orbital motion, that’s the only way out of that logjam.
That’s what you get when you make shit up.
bob has finally agreed his position is that “pure orbital motion”, or “orbital motion without axial rotation” is movement in which the same side of the body remains pointing towards the same distant star. For some reason he lied about his position to start with…I’m trying to find out why.
Why did you lie, bob?
If the celestial body is also rotating on its axis more or less than once per orbit, then all sides could be seen from inside the orbit, as the body rotated. This is also the motion demonstrated by a ball-on-a-string.
Incorrect, as explained ad nauseam.
As incorrectly explained ad nauseam.
Incorrect.
DREMT,
You continue to misrepresent my position. And I didn’t lie, my position is not something you seem to understand, so like a little child you accuse me of lying.
My position is that the term orbital motion without axial rotation is bullshit you made up.
It does not exist.
“Im trying to find out why.”
Well, we would like to figure out why you make up your own astronomy.
It would be easier to figure stuff out if you took your head out of your ass.
That is another lie, bob. I asked you what way an object that was “orbiting” and not “rotating on its own axis” would remain facing as it orbited, and you replied “in the same direction”.
So, once again…why did you lie about your position, bob? And why are you lying now?
Has my position changed DREMPT?
If it hasn’t then I am not lying about my position.
Well you initially said one thing, then when pressed you said the opposite.
DREMT,
I said two slightly different things, nowhere near opposites.
I said my position was not to use the terms orbital motion without axial rotation, because it is a made up term, not used by astronomers. It is essentially meaningless, as such motion is not observed in nature.
However when badgered by the delusional, I stated an object displaying orbital motion without axial rotation would keep it’s face pointed in the same direction.
In order to support your case, you need someone to support your definition of rotation.
“Orbital motion without axial rotation” is not a “term”. The term is just “orbital motion”, “orbiting”, or “revolution”. I add the “without axial rotation” to make it clear that the term “orbital motion”, “orbiting”, or “revolution” should be kept separate from “axial rotation”. If you don’t have an orientation for the object in mind when visualizing orbital motion, then how can you correctly separate “orbital motion” from “axial rotation”?
I can write the following in two ways:
1) Orbital motion involves the object moving around another with the same face always oriented towards the inside of the orbit.
2) “Orbital motion without axial rotation” involves the object moving around another with the same face always oriented towards the inside of the orbit.
In both cases I mean the same thing. But if I wrote 1) instead of 2), I would get people writing “an object can orbit whilst facing any which way it wants, what are you talking about?”
Which is true, but is missing the point I am trying to make.
So I write 2) instead, because it is clear and unambiguous.
DREMT,
Yes you can write
“2) Orbital motion without axial rotation involves the object moving around another with the same face always oriented towards the inside of the orbit.”
But it is physically impossible for an object to behave that way.
The Moon has to rotate to keep the same face pointed toward the Earth.
The moon is rotating, just not on its own axis.
Sorry DREMT,
That’s impossible, only five more things to go before you can have your breakfast.
bob, it is not impossible for an object to rotate about an axis that is external to the body. When it does so, it keeps the same face oriented towards that axis, whilst it moves around it. Even those on your own side of the debate agree with that:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566712
“If you dont have an orientation for the object in mind when visualizing orbital motion, then how can you correctly separate ‘orbital motion’ from ‘axial rotation’?”
ORBIT is simply the path of the CM of the object. CM is a POINT. A point has no orientation nor rotation.
There is no need to have chewing gum in mind when I visualize walking. They are separate actions.
Obviously, there is no need to have an ‘orientation in mind’. It is an entirely separate quantity, from the CM motion described by ORBIT.
Again, when Newton found the planetary orbits, he no need to concern himself with planetary orientation or rotation (which they have).
I dont know why anyone finds this hard.
Relativity is hard, Nate. DREMT has clearly flunked the course. The orbiting object can have any value of independent spin motion.
“The orbiting object can have any value of independent spin motion.”
“Which is true, but is missing the point I am trying to make.”
DREMT,
Now you are telling tall tales.
“bob, it is not impossible for an object to rotate about an axis that is external to the body. When it does so, it keeps the same face oriented towards that axis, whilst it moves around it. Even those on your own side of the debate agree with that:”
Yes, an object can rotate around an axis external to its body.
But that fact does not prevent that object from rotating around an internal axis.
The second part of the statement is patently false, as the Earth rotates around an axis external to its body, yet it does not keep the same face oriented towards that axis.
“But that fact does not prevent that object from rotating around an internal axis.”
Obviously, I am not trying to imply that it does. You have misinterpreted what I wrote, please try again.
DREMT,
Ya Da Ya Da Ya Da,
I get it you are claiming it doesn’t rotate around its axis, but it does, as it has to in order to keep the same face pointed to the inside of its orbit.
Again, your claims are impossible.
But actually when you claim this
“When it does so, it keeps the same face oriented towards that axis, whilst it moves around it.”
Which is contradicted by this statement and your agreement to it
Ball4
“The orbiting object can have any value of independent spin motion.”
DREMT
“Which is true, but is missing the point I am trying to make.”
So you are saying that an object that rotates around an external axis keeps the same face toward the inside of the orbit, but can have any value of independent spin motion.
Those two phrases in the statement above are mutually exclusive.
What I am saying is, that an object that rotates around an external axis (without rotating about its own center of mass) keeps the same face always oriented towards that external axis, whilst it moves. If you click on the link in my 10:02 AM comment, you will find somebody from your own side of the debate who agrees that this is "TRUE".
An object that rotates around an external axis thru Earth (without rotating about its own center of mass observed in the accelerated frame) keeps the same face always oriented towards that external axis, whilst it moves & spins on its own axis with day/night cycles in the inertial frame. As shown here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
If I had meant “from the accelerated frame” I would have said “from the accelerated frame”.
So write “accelerated frame” next time and show progress to become more competent in physics instead of stuck where you are.
I’m not going to say “from the accelerated frame” because I don’t mean “from the accelerated frame”.
Which shows DREMT’s incompetence in relativity. Don’t feel too bad DREMT, relativity is hard.
Which shows Ball4’s incompetence in rotation. Ball4 should feel pretty bad, rotation is easy.
DREMT,
That’s funny, the guy you said agrees with you shows up and says that he doesn’t.
On a different point.
Still impossible for an object to orbit another object keeping the same face to the object without rotating on its axis.
You are in denial, bob.
In denial that DREMT is correct about the non-rotation of Earth’s moon.
Ball4 has always been incapable of following a discussion.
DREMPT,
You have made comments that contradict your own arguments, and I am in denial?
Come on, give us that definition of rotation around an axis within an object.
I know you will refuse, because then your whole house of cards will come tumbling down.
There were no contradictions, bob. An object that rotates around an external axis (without rotating about its own center of mass) keeps the same face always oriented towards that external axis, whilst it moves. But that doesn’t mean that I’m saying that an object that rotates around an external axis cannot also rotate on its own internal axis, at whatever rate.
An object that is rotating around its own internal axis is spinning about a vertical line that passes through the center of mass of the body of the object itself. This motion must be separate from the change in orientation the body experiences when “orbiting”. Otherwise you are not keeping the two motions “orbiting” and “rotating on its own axis” separate.
DREMT,
Very good,
Now you understand that the Moon does not keep the same face pointed in the same direction as it orbits.
You say
“There were no contradictions, bob. An object that rotates around an external axis (without rotating about its own center of mass) keeps the same face always oriented towards that external axis, whilst it moves. ”
The Moon doesn’t keep the same face pointed towards that external axis, it exhibits libration.
Your premise is false, therefore your argument is wrong.
Aside from slight deviations due to libration, the moon keeps the same face always oriented towards the external axis, whilst it moves.
“This motion must be separate from the change in orientation the body experiences when “orbiting”. Otherwise you are not keeping the two motions “orbiting” and “rotating on its own axis” separate.”
There is no change in orientation experienced by being in orbit.
The rotation IS separate.
Ask Newton. Ask Astronomers. As an Effing Dictionary!
This idea is entirely fabricated by people who, without this fabrication, have lost the argument, many time over.
bob, remember when I said:
“He defines revolution as a rotation about an external axis.”
and you responded:
“Yes, any astronomer would do that”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/#comment-615685
Do you still stand by that?
“Celestial bodies rotating about each other often have elliptic orbits. The special case of circular orbits is an example of a rotation around a fixed axis: this axis is the line through the center of mass perpendicular to the plane of motion.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation_around_a_fixed_axis
Couldnt be more clear.
Unless the object’s orbit is a ‘special case’ of circular orbit, it would not be a ‘rotation around a fixed axis’.
I will assume you still stand by that.
D is caught in the act of ignoring inconvenient facts.
So, as “any astronomer” would define revolution as a rotation around an external axis, and “any astronomer” is also aware that most orbits are elliptical and that libration occurs, it is odd that you are trying to bring up libration as if it is some kind of contradiction to what I’m saying.
Did you see ftop_t’s comments on elliptical orbits and libration?
DREMT,
I see you are using the except when it doesn’t, it does argument.
“Aside from slight deviations due to libration, the moon keeps the same face always oriented towards the external axis, whilst it moves.”
You realize that puts you in the coo coo for cocoa puffs category?
Nurse Ratchet, straight jacket stat!
And we were trying to discuss rotation about an internal axis.
Regardless of bizarre FTOP claims, it just couldnt be any more clear.
“The special case of circular orbits is an example of a rotation around a fixed axis: this axis is the line through the center of mass perpendicular to the plane of motion.
Yes, bob, you asked me to define rotation around an internal axis. I did so, then you changed the subject to libration! So…
…any chance of you responding to the points I raised?
D thinks that if anyone, anywhere, at anytime, uses imprecise language or colloquial terms, then that changes the facts. And even reality changes to conform to his erroneous beliefs.
Nope.
“…any chance of you responding to the points I raised?”
I guess not.
There is no objective reality it seems. Its only what someone says that matters.
If FTOP says a circle and an ellipse are the same thing, then thats good enough, for D!
Well, should you choose to eventually read and consider responding to them, here is a link to the comments I was referring to:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-582080
Ftop is very confused about orbits.
He shows an ‘orbit’ as an ellipse with the orbital axis in the wrong place. It should be at a focus, not the center. It should be speeding up at the perigee and slowing at apogee. It should exhibit an obvious libration. It does none of these things. It is worthless in proving anything about planetary orbits.
Again, you cite ftop’s work, while not bothering to check if it has relevance or accuracy. It has neither.
But you should know better. You have seen many times how a rotation is mathematically defined. An elliptical orbit is not a circle, and thus CANNOT possibly be a rotation around an axis.
This is simply a fact, an objective truth.
…and here is a link to where we briefly discussed them already, on this thread:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/#comment-611724
If his argument is irrelevant to real orbits, then it is not doing ‘what it needs to do’ as you declare. It is not relevant to the Moon’s motion. And it does not change the fundamental definition of rotation.
Grasping at straws.
No response? OK then.
This right here is why aliens don’t contact you humans
OK, Eben.
So, keep it up?
Personally, I have doubts about this Universe.
Nick Stokes does a temperature anomaly that currently has shown yet another very small excursion into negative territory -.006 C.
The net effect is that the first 12 days of February, a very short month, are reasonably low.
Too early to tell yet but if it stays in this range I would expect another drop in UAH temps.
What I am not happy about is the inability of the temperature drop to post something more substantial in the way of a drop.
No way of claiming enough variability if it cannot get enough steam up to get well under the line.
At least the new baseline gives some hope of a near negative or negative anomaly if La Nina were to persist.
“another very small excursion into negative territory -.006 C.”
Only because of the reset of the baseline, which is arbitrary choice.
testing post
bdg…”No he didnt. You can view the GISTEMPv3 northern hemisphere data here”.
Yeah…and the graph at the first link looks exactly like the one posted by Heller. It has a flat trend from 1940 – 1970 whereas the NCAR graph from 1974 does not.
Don’t know what you’re arguing about. Heller’s video is full of examples of chicanery and you cherry pick one, and get it wrong. Besides that, Heller has an immense amount of professional experience analyzing this kind of data and researching it. He has incredible credentials and you ad hom him???? Get over yourself.
Not even close. Just to be clear I’m looking at this video by Heller at 30:00. It has a blue line labeled NCAR 1974 and a red line labeled NASA 2016. The blue line is specified as being for the northern hemisphere.
https://youtu.be/Gh-DNNIUjKU
That red line looks nothing like the red line (northern hemisphere) that GISS actually reported and can be found here.
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/graph_data/Hemispheric_Temperature_Change/graph.png
Heller’s “incredible credentials” certainly didn’t do him any favors here. I repeat…ask him to fix this issue, which happens to be rather egregious, and resubmit the video for review.
bdg…”Heller’s “incredible credentials” certainly didn’t do him any favors here”.
The problem isn’t Heller, it’s your inability to understand him. You keep posting a GISS temperature series showing a flat trend from 1940 – 1970 whereas the equivalent NCAR graph shows a clear cooling trend in that range.
The published GISS data shows a clear cooling trend as well. In fact, GISS shows more cooling than what NCAR shows. That red line Heller overlaid on that graph looks nothing like what GISS actually published. How do you not see that?
To be fair the NCAR plot is a 5 year average. So if we compare GISS’ 5 year average with NCAR’s 5 year then NCAR does show more cooling on that scale, but not by a lot. My point still stands that the red line on Heller’s graph looks nothing like what GISS actually published.
On balance clouds will cause cooler temperatures as they increase. How much cooling depends on the type of cloud, altitude, thickness and location of the clouds.
For example Stratocumulus clouds seem to be the most effective in causing cooling especially when present in the tropics.
I would say La Nina conditions promote an increase in the formation of Stratocumulus clouds as opposed to El Nino.
I also think a more meridional atmospheric circulation and an increase in galactic cosmic rays(low solar) if anything favor an increase in clouds. They certainly don’t lessen cloud coverage. UV light changes from the sun and changes in regards to latitude on earth where they are concentrated can contribute to a more meridional atmospheric circulation at times of low solar activity.
The one item which is so overlooked is not only the strength of the geo magnetic field but it’s configuration, when it comes to the climate. So over looked!
Along the lines of low solar/weak geo magnetic field is probably an increase in major geological activity.
Major volcanic eruptions also would contribute on balance to what increasing cloud coverage would accomplish as far as the climate which is to lower the global temperatures. Not to mention a major volcanic eruption with a high concentration of SO2
Solar predictions to put it mildly have been way off as very low solar activity continues well into the start of solar cycle 25.
If this condition continues as we move forward it is going to impact the climate much sooner if there is that connection which I think there is.
I want this experiment to take place so I am in favor of CO2 increasing as much as possible and solar activity to be a low as possible so we can see what happens to the climate.
Maybe we will get an answer but I am not holding my breathe.
While I am at it, climatic thresholds is another area over looked!
I think if conditions move in one direction or another long enough and to a degree of magnitude strong enough that eventually a threshold will be reached.
I USE LIQUID WATER AS AN EXAMPLE.
as liquid water cools from 50f to 40f to 35 f nothing really happens then when it cools to 32f all hell breaks loose, thresholds are met.
We would be amazed not for the fact it has been known for so long, and at one time that threshold for water would have never been known or imagined.
Same for the climate, there are thresholds we don’t know and can’t even be imagined.
Now this is interesting.
If the ball is not rotating in the inertial frame, a thrown hammer should leave the circle with the wire at 90 degrees to the direction of motion and turn 90 degrees into trail due to air resistance.
You should not see complete rotations. In this video I count 1.5 complete rotations before the hammer drops out of view.
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/141863456991924882/
Before release, the ball is rotating…just not on its own axis.
So it changes from revolving around the thrower during the spin-up to rotating on its axis at the moment of release.
At the moment of release, how does the ball instantly transform the angular momentum from its revolution around the thrower to angular momentum around its own rotation axis and kinetic energy of translation?
Where does the kinetic energy carried by the released ball come from?
In my world view the ball already has the correct angular momentum already from rotation on its axis, and retains that angular momentum.
The kinetic energy comes from the radial velocity before release and that becomes the same linear velocity after release.
In your world view, where is the energy stored, and what determines how much of the energy carried by the revolving ball becomes kinetic energy and how much becomes angular momentum of rotation?
Equations, please.
“So it changes from revolving around the thrower during the spin-up to rotating on its axis at the moment of release.”
Exactly. Although, as Tesla put it, in his third article:
‘The rotation is, however, not due to an exclusive virtue of angular motion, but to the fact that the tangential velocities of the masses or parts of the body thrown off are different.”
Tesla made declarations without support whatsoever. He was a bullshit artist just like you clowns. His ideas were never submitted to a science journal for review.
The object spins on its own axis after release because it was spinning on its own axis prior to release. (Newtons first law of motion)
So you tell me, in your own words, what is fixed axis rotation then, SGW. Explain why it does not apply to the case of a ball on a string.
skeptic…”Tesla made declarations without support whatsoever. He was a bullshit artist just like you clowns”.
Skeptic disappears for a while and Michael Jackson appears. It was pointed out that Michael Jackson is dead, now Skeptic is back.
Ent, you are confused about angular momentum, as well as physics in general.
This has all been discussed before.
You keep evading reality.
And here we have the clown who can’t figure out how to calculate the near and far side velocity of the moon. He says they are the same. How embarrassing.
“Relative to the stars”, Earth moves in its orbit at about 66,000 mph, just to use easy numbers. Moon moves in its orbit at about 2300 mph, again using easy numbers. So after Moon moves “behind” the fleeing Earth, how does Moon manage to catch up, only going about 3.5% as fast?
And you “relative to the stars” idiots can’t use the “ball-on-a-string” analogy, because you reject that reality.
skeptic…”And here we have the clown who cant figure out how to calculate the near and far side velocity of the moon”.
Neither velocity is significant since the radial velocity of a rigid body. presumed to be of uniform density, is located at or near the COG. It is you who fails to understand rigid body theory.
The Moon is translating in its orbit, which explains its change of face direction relative to the stars. It cannot rotate on its axis…not possible while keeping the same face pointed to the Earth.
You non-spinners should make up your minds. ftop_t upthread says:
The linear velocity of the closest point of the moon is
v(closest) = (r-r(1)) x w
The linear velocity of the farthest point of the moon is
v(farthest) = (r+r(1)) x w
Where:
r is the radius from the barycenter to the center of the moon
r(1) is the radius of the moon
w is the angular velocity of the moons orbital rotation
Bottom line is the far side of the moon is moving faster by the diameter of the moon (times the same angular velocity) than the near side.
This has nothing to do with rigid body theory. Does a point on the outside of a spinning merry-go-round have a greater velocity than a point a few inches away from the center??
Even Tesla recognized the tangential velocities for the ball on a string were different for the far and near sides.
Gordon barks:
The Moon is translating in its orbit
Wrong! You CONTINUALLY screw up the definition of translation. A translating body will NEVER change its orientation. You will not find a reference anywhere in the world that says otherwise. A line in a translating body will NEVER rotate. And you claim you went to engineering school?
“Even Tesla…”
I love it when you say “even Tesla…” like he’s some kind of idiot, and not your intellectual superior.
Tesla’s editor was the idiot, not Tesla who supported with competent physics the moon rotates on its own axis in the inertial frame with Tesla’s wheel/balls M assembly.
Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis in his accelerated frame.
You are completely delusional.
dremt…”Before release, the ball is rotatingjust not on its own axis”.
After release, it begins to rotate about its COG because it has a trailing chain or handle. As the ball/hammer goes off on a tangent line the chain/handle is trying to follow but it needs to turn to do that. That creates a torque about the ball/hammer that causes it to rotate about its COG.
“That creates a torque about the ball”
This has all been discussed ad nauseum, and No, that is not why.
I have seen people from both sides of the debate make all sorts of arguments for why the ball rotates on its own axis after release, Gordon. Fact is, no matter what the real reason is, it is not rotating on its own axis before release. Those that want to describe the movement as a general plane motion (translation of the center of mass of the ball in a circle plus a rotation about that center of mass) need to remember that this description should only be applied when pure rotation or pure translation does not apply.
The ball on a string can (and thus should) absolutely be described as a pure rotation about an axis that is external to the ball, with no rotation about the center of mass of the ball. Nobody on either side of the debate should have any dispute with that. The ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis. That is the absolute and final position on the ball on a string that should be reached by those on both sides. So hopefully we will hear no more about it (but almost certainly we will).
The ball on a string is certainly observed not rotating on its own axis in the frame attached to the ball. That is the absolute and final position on the ball on a string that should be reached by those in that frame like DREMT.
Other observers of the same ball located in the inertial frame observe the ball on string rotating on its own axis once per orbit as ftop_t shows in his work, linked. So hopefully we will hear no more about it (but almost certainly we will).
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
Located in the inertial frame, I observe the ball rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass as ftop_t shows in his work that you linked to (as only the external axis slider is moving).
The difference between the “Spinners” and the “Non-Spinners” position is not one of “reference frames”, as was proven down-thread. It comes down to how each “side” defines “orbital motion without axial rotation”, and as you can see from the gif with the two orbiting moons which was discussed there, they are two completely different motions. The left moon moves in a fundamentally different way from the right moon, regardless of reference frames. Therefore the difference between the “Spinners” and the “Non-Spinners” position transcends reference frames.
DREMT has a faulty GPS. Correctly located in the accelerated frame by calibrated GPS locator, DREMT observes the ball rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass as ftop_t shows in his linked work where the accelerated axis slider is set to 0 rotations as any astute reader can plainly observe & determine.
The moon on the right is accelerating in a fundamentally different way than the moon on the left. Reference frame based on location is the only difference between the left moon observations; that is all there is to it. Get a better GPS DREMT. Listen and learn.
The difference between the “Spinners” and the “Non-Spinners” position is not one of “reference frames”, as was proven down-thread. It comes down to how each “side” defines “orbital motion without axial rotation”, and as you can see from the gif with the two orbiting moons which was discussed there, they are two completely different motions. The left moon moves in a fundamentally different way from the right moon, regardless of reference frames. Therefore the difference between the “Spinners” and the “Non-Spinners” position transcends reference frames.
The difference between the “Spinners” and the “Non-Spinners” position on the left and right moon cited is not one of “reference frames”, as was pointed out down-thread as they are moving in fundamentally differently accelerations. Therefore, the difference between the “Spinners” and the “Non-Spinners” position transcends reference frames only between the two moons cited.
Reference frame based on location is the only difference between the left moon observations; that is all there is to it. See here where there is only one (LH) moon object not two:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
“Therefore, the difference between the “Spinners” and the “Non-Spinners” position transcends reference frames only between the two moons cited.”
…and the “two moons cited” represent how each side sees “orbital motion without axial rotation”. The “moon on the left” is how the “Non-Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” and the “moon on the right” is how the “Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation”. This is the fundamental difference between the two “sides”, and you just agreed it transcends reference frames. You’ll get there.
The debate is Earth’s moon, ball on string, toy train, chalk circle, breaking LP record, fixed horse on mgr, ftop_t object, Tesla’s ball M, and probably others where one side of the object always faces the center. Ref. frames matter in the debate, that is all there is to it as ftop_t demonstrates:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
DREMT can introduce countless other moons and objects outside the debate like DREMT’s cited right moon which really is fundamentally differently accelerating but that tactic earns DREMT nothing in the debate.
Listen and learn DREMT; and…AND fix your GPS DREMT.
You are incapable of following a discussion and/or thinking things through logically.
The “moon on the right” is of absolute, fundamental importance to this debate, especially for the “Spinners”. That is how you guys visualize the movement of an object that is “orbiting” but not “rotating on its own axis”. You see the “moon on the left” as rotating on its own axis, because you mentally add the motion “rotating on its own axis” to the movement seen in the “moon on the right” to get there.
Whereas the “Non-Spinners” visualize the movement of an object that is “orbiting” and not “rotating on its own axis” as that shown by the “moon on the left”. We see the “moon on the right” as rotating on its own axis, once per orbit, in the opposite direction to the orbital motion, because we mentally add the motion “rotating on its own axis” to the movement seen in the “moon on the left” to get there.
You have agreed that the fundamental difference between the two “sides” positions transcends reference frames.
Wrong debate DREMT, the moon on the right keeping no face to center of orbit is another debate all together since it is NOT the motion of Earth’s moon, ball on string, toy train, chalk circle, breaking LP record, fixed horse on mgr, ftop_t object, Tesla’s “fixt” ball M, all keeping same face to center as here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
Stick to the actual debate, listen, and learn and you will get there that ref. frames do matter in the actual debate of Earth’s physical moon keeping ~same face to center and the related objects acceleration & rotation.
Go find someone interested in debating fundamentally different motion of a moon of Mars or the RHS moon if you want to debate something else that really is fundamentally different. DREMT should (but won’t) learn from this that the “We” see the “moon on the right” as rotating on its own axis, once per orbit really is another debate fundamentally different not keeping the same face to center than original Earth’s moon rotation debate.
It’s not a different debate. I just explained how it is of absolute significance to this one. And in fact I have been arguing these same points from the very beginning, so it’s not even as if it’s anything new.
You have agreed that the fundamental difference between the two “sides” positions transcends reference frames.
That means no more obfuscating on reference frames for Ball4. Shame.
Sure, DREMT’s new RHS moon debate really is fundamentally different. The actual original debate where all debating objects are staring at center is fundamentally the same & ref. frames do matter in the original years old debate & really that’s all there is to it.
Not new, not different. Same debate, sorry.
You have agreed that the fundamental difference between the two “sides” positions transcends reference frames.
That means no more obfuscating on reference frames for Ball4. Shame.
I have agreed that there is a fundamental difference between the two LH and RH moons: 1) LHS side staring at the center same as in the motion of Earth’s moon, ball on string, toy train, chalk circle, breaking LP record, fixed horse on mgr, ftop_t object, Tesla’s “fixt” ball M, and 2) RHS moon NOT staring at the center – which is different motion and why DREMT’s debating so often fails, DREMT doesn’t understand.
The RHS moon doesn’t stare at the center of orbit as does the ftop_t object seen here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
That’s all there is to it: ref. frames will continue to matter for observations of objects long on list 1).
Yes, the motion of the two moons is completely different. That’s the point, Ball4. The “moon on the left” is how the “Non-Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” and the “moon on the right” is how the “Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation”. That is the fundamental difference between the two “sides”, and you have agreed it transcends reference frames.
You have agreed that the fundamental difference between the two “sides” positions transcends reference frames.
That means no more obfuscating on reference frames for Ball4. Shame.
Here is the gif we are talking about, just for the record:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File%3ATidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
“Yes” writes DREMT who has “got there” in this discussion agreeing:
That’s all there is to it: ref. frames will continue to matter for observations of objects long on list 1).
I do not agree with that sentence.
“Those that want to describe the movement as a general plane motion (translation of the center of mass of the ball in a circle plus a rotation about that center of mass) need to remember that this description should only be applied when pure rotation or pure translation does not apply.”
Which is exactly what we have with Moon. Its clear that D gets that, but is unable to admit it because then the argument will bw over, and what to do then?
I suppose it’s quite flattering having a stalker, in a way.
Its an easy way to evade the facts, blame the messenger.
“I suppose it’s quite flattering having a stalker, in a way.”
Though you think they would get the message, eventually. It’s weird when they keep responding to you despite the fact it’s been nearly two years since you stopped responding to them. That implies a level of desperate and pathetic obsessiveness on their part that becomes quite sad and embarrassing to watch.
“It’s weird when they keep responding to you ”
Ha!
You respond all the time, whenever you feel like you have a good answer.
When you don’t have any answers, the ‘Im not responding’ BS is whipped out.
Such as here:
“D ‘this description should only be applied when pure rotation or pure translation does not apply.’
N ‘Which is exactly what we have with Moon.'”
This fact is horribly inconvenient.
Thus a convenient evasion tactic is needed.
…although it can be quite funny.
Can’t wait to hear the excuses and reasons the AGW crowd will have when global warming comes to a halt.
It is going to be hilarious.
” when global warming comes to a halt. ”
It will take a while.
Suppose we stopped emitting CO2 tomorrow.
To cancel out the 0.87W/m^2 energy imbalance due to the CO2 already in the atmosphere will take another 0.5C warming and 25 years.
That is already locked in.
Any future emissions would require a higher temperature and a longer time period to reach equilibrium.
Your assuming CO2 is the cause.
It doesn’t matter what the cause of the +0.87 W/m^2 EEI is. It’s going to take awhile before that goes negative even whatever caused it to be positive ceases.
bdgwx, your “EEI” is nonsense. You don’t know crap about science. You have to make things up, like you did here:
“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.”
1) Where did I ever claim the S/B Law was bogus?
2) Where did I ever claim 231.7K for Earth’s temperature?
bdg…”It doesnt matter what the cause of the +0.87 W/m^2 EEI is”.
You are focusing only on radiation loss. Most heat loss from the surface is via conduction directly to the air and subsequent convection loss. Radiation is a minor player in surface heat loss just as it is in homes. Most heat loss in homes is via conduction through the walls, ceiling and floor.
R-rated insulation is installed to slow conductive heat loss. Till recently, no one bothered with radiation loss.
Radiation is the only significant means by which Earth sheds heat.
bdg…”Radiation is the only significant means by which Earth sheds heat”.
You are observing from a very narrow viewpoint. Radiation does not flow from the surface to space, it flows from atmospheric molecules at TOA. The heat is transported from the surface to TOA by air molecules which are 99% nitrogen and oxygen.
Read Lindzen on it. There is a huge insulator of air molecules between the surface and space and most heat is transported from the surface via convection to TOA. Not only that, most heat is in the Tropics and heat is transported by convection to either Pole as the heated air rises.
AWG theory claims that only CO2 can radiate to space but there is little or no research on whether N2 and O2 will radiate if the temperature differential is great. If you shot heated nitrogen molecules from a space craft to space, they would cool immediately…by radiation.
Besides, heat is dissipated naturally by expanding air molecules as they rise. The physics is infinitely more complex than the AGW theory allows. Climate models cannot begin to capture the complexity of gases in the atmosphere.
GR said: You are observing from a very narrow viewpoint.
The EEI is what comes in minus what goes out. Nearly 100% of the energy leaving Earth is in the form of radiation.
GR said: AWG theory claims that only CO2 can radiate to space
This statement tells me that you do not understand AGW. AGW does NOT claim that only CO2 can radiate to space.
There is also research on how much radiation from N2,O2 is in the EEI and reaches space. Gordon isn’t competent enough to find or understand the research.
Gordon, R-rated insulation is installed to slow conductive internal thermodynamic energy loss. Till recently, no one bothered with home radiation loss up until metal foil was added to the R-rated insulation.
bdg…”The EEI is what comes in minus what goes out. Nearly 100% of the energy leaving Earth is in the form of radiation”.
That’s pure AGW theory, not reality. The reality is that the planet has an average temperature of about 15C whereas a planet without an atmosphere and oceans would be a theoretical 33C cooler.
To raise the temperature by 33C, the Sun has to invest an incredible amount of energy into warming the Earth, energy which is retained for long periods of time and not immediately radiated away. Therefore, energy in over the millenia cannot equal energy out, otherwise the planet would still be 33C cooler.
The truth is that only a fraction of the solar input daily leaves the planet immediately.
With regard to r-rated insulation, before the reflective layer was added, the insulation sans reflective layer was doing a very good job. The reflective layer only increases the overall insulation effectiveness by a few percent.
Look it up. Radiation at terrestrial temperatures is a very ineffective way of cooling.
GR,
Are you challenging the concept of the EEI and thus the 1LOT or are you challenging the fact that Earth sheds heats almost entirely via radiation. I honestly can’t tell.
Has anyone ever heard of abrupt climate change?
Yep. Dansgaard–Oeschger events.
Yes the climate can change fast and quick and ice core data shows this to be the case.
Absolutely.
Climate is changing ? OMG when did it start , 1950 ???
https://youtu.be/8SqTSZq1R_k
arctic ice past its first hurdle.
Will not be lowest this year. Still 21 days to see how high it can go. The La Nina represents a general cooling of the earth system as shown by the UAH drop.
Clouds possibly?
The interesting thing is that it is the lack of clouds on the equator, trapping the heat it does not reflect, that seems to allow the coolness to develop.
angech…”arctic ice past its first hurdle.
Will not be lowest this year. Still 21 days to see how high it can go”.
Arctic ice extent is a red herring (excuse pun). As long as the Earth remains in its current orbit, with its current axial tilt, the Arctic and the Antarctic will never warm enough to lose their ice year round. No solar input = lots of ice.
Climate alarmists are trying to pull a fast one by focusing attention on the brief Arctic summer and trying to interpolate that to the entire years. Madness!!
testing…I can post from one computer but not the other.
Seems to be fixed…permissions issue. If your computer goes crazy, like when you try to access a file in Windows Explorer and strange things happen, check the permissions in files and folders.
For example, I pressed on the clock on Windows Taskbar to reset the time and menu’s started to open that were unrelated to the clock. It turned out to be a permissions issue in an unrelated folder.
tim…”Does a ball on a string always go in a circle? YES!
Does a moon orbiting a planet always go in a circle? NO!”
Tim…the main point of the ball on the string was to illustrate that the ball can rotate around an external axis while always keeping the same face pointing toward the axis. The only way the ball can rotate about its COG or a local axis is to wrap itself up in the string.
The motion has similarities to the motion of the Moon in its orbit. If the string is cut suddenly (instantaneously without creating a torque on the ball), the ball will fly off along a tangential line, still not rotating on a local axis. Same with the Moon, if gravity could be cut off instantaneously.
The fact is, the ball and the Moon are trying to move along a tangential path at each instant of their respective orbits. It’s ingenuous of you to compare the tension on the string to the effect of gravity then claim the ball on the string has no comparison to the Moon’s orbit.
It’s equally obvious that because the Moon always keeps the same face toward the Earth, that like the ball attached to the string, it cannot possibly rotate about a local axis. This is an obvious truth that you spinners are completely missing.
“This is an obvious truth that you spinners are completely missing.”
We spinners dont go by obvious truths, we go by evidence.
Yesterday’s exchange with DREMT made it clear that from a physics viewpoint the behavior of the system is exactly the same either way.
The Moon stores angular momentum which would remain the same if the Earth magically disappeared. The Moon’s rate of rotation relative the inertial reference frame would remain the same.
Similarly the kinetic energy of the Moon’s tangential velocity becomes the same amount of linear kinetic energy if the Earth disappears.
Physically the Earth/Moon system follows the same physics as a thrown hammer. This applies regardless of spinner or non-spinner semantics.
A difference which makes no difference is no difference.
The ultimate test is experiment. Can you suggest something testable? An observation or measurement which would be physically different in the spinner or non-spinner cases?
spinning or non-spinning
Get a tetherball. Holding the ball with the string stretched taut, walk in a circle around the post. The string does not wrap around the ball. This is “orbital motion without axial rotation”. Now walk around the post whilst turning the ball such that the string wraps around the ball. This is “orbital motion with axial rotation”.
Experiment complete.
I set up the tetherball in my garden, walk round it as you describe and the string attached to the post does not wrap around the ball.
However, the strings I attached between the ball and the gatepost, the drainpipe and the Apple tree all wrapped around the ball.
Three strings out of four wrapped around the ball. It must be rotating.
It is rotating. Just not on its own axis.
Ent, once again, you demonstrate your ignorance of “orbital motion” AND “rotating about an axis”.
Thanks.
Yes ClintR, DREMT demonstrates ignorance of much of physics including “orbital motion”.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
DREMT, please become more competent in physics.
#2
Ball4, please stop trolling.
“Can you suggest something testable?”
Ent, attach one end of a string to a ball. Hold the other end of the string tight, so there is no slack. Slowly rotate the ball on its axis. Notice the string wraps around the ball.
If the ball is actually rotating about its axis, the string wraps around it. When you swing the ball around your head, the string does not wrap up. The ball is NOT rotating about its axis.
It’s the same motion as Moon. If Moon were actually rotating about its axis, we would see all sides of it from Earth.
Easy to do ClintR
“attach one end of a string to a ball. Hold the other end of the string tight, so there is no slack. Slowly rotate the ball on its axis. Notice the string wraps around the ball.”
I was able to slowly rotate the ball at the same speed as I revolved it around the other end of the string.
No, the string did not wrap around the ball.
Ent, attach one end of a string to a ball. Hold the other end of the string tight, so there is no slack. Slowly rotate the ball on its axis. Notice the string wraps around the ball.
Congrats. You passed the moron determination test. Those who understand physics and kinematics would never make such lunatic statements as you did.
Here is another idiot test for you:
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=80BA8BA13FEC03B0!2052&ithint=file%2cpptx&authkey=!AER-b8FVoR8gLQM
https://www.purdue.edu/freeform/me274/animations/
In the animation shown in the first link above, which disk rotates on its own axis? The disk on the right that is welded to the arm, or the disk on the left that is pinned to the arm and free to rotate?
Your answer will determine whether you would flunk the Purdue University mechanical engineering course in mechanics, and determine whether you are a clown or not.
SGW, as has been explained to you before, “kinetics” and “kinematics” do not describe “orbital motion”. Orbital motion is an “animal” of its own. That’s why Newton had to develop calculus so he could understand.
Kinetics and Kinematics will tell you Moon could never catch Earth, moving at 3.5% of Earth’s speed. You know nothing about orbital motion, and can’t learn.
But give us some more links you can’t understand.
It’s not surprising ClintR could not answer the question. He can’t even calculate the velocity of the far and near side of the moon.
So you’re a clown and you would flunk the Purdue mechanical engineering mechanics course. But we knew that already based on all your dumbass posts.
SGW, as usual, your own link proves you wrong.
The disk is NOT rotating because it is firmly attached. That means one side of the disk always faces the center. Like Moon, which is also NOT rotating.
ClintR yelps:
The disk is NOT rotating because it is firmly attached.
You flunked, genius. As the description says for the object on the right with the disk welded to the bar:
For this case, OC rotates about O and the disk both rotates and translates. For this problem, the initial kinetic energy of the system goes into rotational KE for the bar and translational KE for the disk, in addition to rotational KE for the disk.
Kinematics is often not intuitive and requires a certain amount of intelligence to comprehend certain concepts. Which is why you clowns don’t understand.
So explain how and why the disk which is rigidly attached is not a textbook example of fixed axis rotation (in other words, rotating about an external axis rather than its own center of mass).
Relativity explains it DREMT; I see you have to ask someone else to explain it to you.
From the frame of reference in which the origin is in the center of the orbit, and the Cartesian axes remain pointing towards distant fixed stars, the disk is rotating about an axis that is external to the disk, and not about its own center of mass.
From the frame of reference in which the origin is in the center of the orbit, and the Cartesian axes remain pointing towards distant fixed stars, the disk is rotating about an axis that is external to the disk, and not about its own center of mass observed from the accelerated frame as shown here including day/night cycles due to spinning on its own axis in the cartesian coordinates:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
If I had meant “from the accelerated frame” I would have said “from the accelerated frame”.
So write “accelerated frame” next time and show progress to become more competent in physics instead of stuck incompetently where you are.
I’m not going to say “from the accelerated frame” because I don’t mean “from the accelerated frame”.
Which shows DREMT’s incompetence in relativity. Don’t feel too bad DREMT, relativity is hard.
Which shows Ball4s incompetence in rotation. Ball4 should feel pretty bad, rotation is easy.
DREMT yelps:
So explain how and why the disk which is rigidly attached is not a textbook example of fixed axis rotation
You were given plenty of explanations. So, go argue with the Purdue University School of Mechanical Engineering who posted the problem and solution. They are world class:
We maintain high standards, whether in the classroom, the laboratory, or the workplace. Purdue ME is one of the top ten schools in the country, as ranked by US News & World Report. 98% of our students pass the Fundamentals of Engineering Exam. 91% of our undergraduates engage in industry experiences while they’re here (like internships and co-ops). 45% of our students gain international experience (the national average is just 5%).
They are not about publish incorrect information regarding a simple on-line mechanics problem.
DREMT spews:
From the frame of reference in which the origin is in the center of the orbit, and the Cartesian axes remain pointing towards distant fixed stars, the disk is rotating about an axis that is external to the disk, and not about its own center of mass.
Your harebrained viewpoint does not agree with the Purdue explanation. Go argue with them. And while you are at it, contact professor “Beanie” at his university and complain about the rod-sphere problem.
So you do not believe fixed axis rotation exists. OK, got it.
Wrong again, SGW. You’re still trying to use kinematics with orbital motion. You’ve never get it going the wrong way. Just like Moon could never catch Earth, if it relied only on kinematics.
You’re way behind and not making any progress. You’re just like Bindidon.
I found this demonstration of the pendulum motion interesting and have been looking to equate the variance in the angular momentum of the two pendulum swings.
L = mvr
I was disturbed by the definition of the movement, “OC rotates about O and the disk translates without rotation” for the pendulum that is not pinned to the moving arm.
The reason this is challenging is that the disk is moving in a circular path — which fails the definition of a translation.
“In a translation transformation all the points in the object are moved in a straight line in the same direction.”
The location of the disk requires the use of a rotational matrix to find its location.
In both cases, the disk is not moving up or down, or right or left but traversing a circular path.
So what explains the movement?
Well, the welded pin is straightforward. All parts of the pendulum rotate around Point O and the angular velocity is strictly determined by the radius of any given point. the far end of the pendulum must travel a distance of:
For an entire circle, it would be = pi x diameter; 1/2 a circle would be pi x radius. So the far point travels
pi x (Length of the arm + radius of the disk)
This depiction shows the welded disk. The black dotted circle shows the circular path of the arm and the purple dotted line shows the distance a far point must travel
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/jigvu2wsof
Thus, 1/2 of the disk travels a distance greater than the length of the arm of the pendulum as depicted by the space between the black and purple dotted line
What is interesting is the pendulum on the left where the disk is free to spin.
The disk is still traveling in a circular motion, but any given point on the disk only travels the distance of the arc created by the length of the arm.
pi x (Length of the arm)
This depiction shows the free spinning disk. Again, the black dotted circle shows the circular path of the arm and the red dotted circle shows the distance the point travels is the same as the distance the arm travels
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/eb0uweg4ee
Because angular momentum is predicated on the distance a point is from the center of rotation and angular momentum must be conserved, we have a variance in the speed of the two pendulums.
The pendulum on the left is rotating around a shorter distance and will move faster. The pendulum on the right is traveling a greater circular path and will have to move slower.
It is exactly the same as a skater that pulls his/her arms closer to the body.
https://openstax.org/books/university-physics-volume-1/pages/11-3-conservation-of-angular-momentum
The pendulum on the left is rotating clockwise to Point O, which is why the angle (alpha) goes from 180 to 0 while the angle of the arm goes from 0 to 180.
This opposing rotation of the free spinning disk reduces the distance any point on the disk must travel, increasing the speed of the swing to maintain conservation of angular momentum.
Another great way to visualize the opposing rotation of the free rotating disk against the rotation of the arm which increases the angular velocity of the arm is to equate it to the way a person pumps a swing to increase its speed.
The horizontal bar can be viewed as the legs of a person on a swing. The legs start out extended and as the pendulum swings to the left, the horizontal line gets closer to the bar (like pulling your legs in) and extends as it swings back.
This creates greater angular velocity because the radius is smaller and angular momentum is conserved.
This video shows the movement exactly at 3:57
https://youtu.be/MbWhKFIayp4
Note, the wheel is rotating on its axis and this is increasing the angular momentum of the bar.
Thus, in the Purdue depiction, the pendulum on the left is rotating about two axis whereas the one on the right is rotating about one external axis.
“Note, the wheel is rotating on its axis and this is increasing the angular momentum of the bar.”
Should read,
“Note, the wheel is rotating on its axis and this is increasing the angular VELOCITY of the bar.”
angech says:
” arctic ice past its first hurdle. ”
Dunno exactly what you mean, maybe the graph helps you in explaining:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QBlh325tHF-4NRlWsHf_6sgskO_ipyse/view
And here is the same graph for the Antarctic, the ball is round there as usual:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PdqOctb7zaMgvdMdX2sId1g_o7U13mM-/view
J.-P. D.
Always just these pseudo-arguments based on trivial examples, which by no means can reflect reality … ball-on-a-string, merry-go-round, racehorses, train on an oval track, coins!
Oh Noes. How boring.
One of my observations made among former colleagues was:
The less they were able to contradict scientifically or technically, the more they were ready to discredit trivially and polemically.
Why is it so hard to accept that you can’t compare such a complex movement composition as shown by the Moon (extremely slow spin overlying its orbiting) with the movement of a ball fixed on a string?
And above all: what the heck does that all have to do with the NASA? The complexity of the lunar movement has been admired, understood and described long long time before NASA was born.
*
Why don’t you have the courage to scientifically contradict for example Tobias Mayer, the first astronomer who, unlike Cassini, provided a written proof of Moon’s spin, in which he computed both the spin duration and the inclination of the spin axis (with a much higher precision than Cassini had offered?
That would show you can do something else than playing in the kindergarten.
Steven Wepster wrote a book in English about Mayer’s work, unfortunately behind paywall:
https://tinyurl.com/1obcwd0a
I obtained the book’s most important Chapter 9 from the library of the ‘Hamburger Sternwarte’, Hamburg’s observatory, but I’m not allowed to upload it.
I don’t need to buy it: I read Mayer’s original, 130 pages long description in German of what he did:
https://www.e-rara.ch/download/pdf/913790?name=IV%20Abhandlung%20%C3%BCber%20die%20Umw%C3%A4lzung%20des%20Monds%20um%20seine%20Axe%20und%20die%20scheinbare%20Beweg
The only thing I missed was that the typography and the quality of the copy would have been sufficient to allow Google Books for a perfect digitization: I would then have been able to write a nice piece of software exactly reproducing Mayer’s triginometric and algebraic calculations.
So feel free to buy Wepster’s book and show you have balls, or, as elder Spanish women sometimes use to say:
” ¡Mustranos que tienes cojones, hombres! ”
But… I anticipate right now your supercourageous answer:
” We don’t need to read Wepster’s antiscience! ‘We’ know that like a ball on a string, the Moon can’t rotate about its axis! ”
Right?
J.-P. D.
You have already agreed that a ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis, but merely rotating around an external one, and that puts you at odds with 99% of your fellow “Spinners”. Once the rest of them are up to speed with the ball on a string, maybe we can discuss why you still believe as you do. In the meantime, you can help things along by arguing against your colleagues when they say that a ball on a string is rotating on its own axis.
Bindidon, a celestial body in pure orbital motion, around a host, always has one side facing the inside of the orbit. This is the motion Moon exhibits — pure orbital motion. And this is also the motion demonstrated by a ball-on-a-string.
If the celestial body is also rotating on its axis, then all sides could be seen from inside the orbit, as the body rotated. This is the motion Earth exhibits — orbital motion AND rotating about its axis.
Because the above are established fundamentals of orbital motion, arguments to the contrary are easily debunked.
That’s why this is so much fun.
You keep using the term “pure orbital motion” so I searched for it.
All I found was references to the Zeeman effect.
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Supplemental_Modules_(Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry)/Quantum_Mechanics/Zeeman_Effect/2%3A_Anomalous_Zeeman_Effect_(Vector_Model)#:~:
Please explain the relevance of the Zeeman effect to the orbital mechanics of bodies in the solar system.
You’re confused again, Ent. That’s the danger of using a search engine when you don’t understand the basics. Your search involving “orbital” led you to the electron “orbitals”, hence you ended up with the Zeeman effect.
“Pure orbital motion” refers to orbiting without axial rotation, as demonstrated by Moon and a ball-on-a-string.
You can’t even understand the ball-on-a-string yet. It’s one baby-step at a time. You’re years away from getting it right. Longer if you have a closed mind.
You know a discussion is going nowhere when ones side thinks Newton, Einstein, and NASA (along with every living, breathing physicist) are ‘years away from getting is right’.
TF, you’re so defeated you can’t even fake it anymore.
“Pure orbital motion refers to orbiting without axial rotation, as demonstrated by Moon and a ball-on-a-string.”
So I searched for “orbiting without axial rotation” and got,,,,nothing.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/#comment-615705
” You have already agreed that a ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis… ”
” This is the motion Moon exhibits — pure orbital motion. And this is also the motion demonstrated by a ball-on-a-string. ”
*
This is absolutely uninteresting for me: I’m neither a Spinner let alone a Non-Spinner.
Simply because both ‘teams’ endlessly persist in proving that their view concerning the baby toy examples is the correct one.
How many times should I repeat that all these prepubescent games are completely pointless?
The Moon’s motion has NOTHING to do with a ball-on-a-string.
*
Please try to escape out of this fantasy world, by going into what people really did in order to demonstrate lunar spin, and manage to scientifically contradict what they did.
That is adult behavior. And it would cost you quite a lot more work than simply repeating Tesla’s quick shot!
*
Oh, btw: it’s now two full years ago that I send a mail to Aleksandar Tomic, politely asking him what was wrong in five different articles dealing with lunar spin.
Still no answer… that’s not how real science works.
J.-P. D.
You are a “Spinner” because you think the moon rotates on its own axis.
However, you realize that the ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis. So, to stop these “baby toy” games from carrying on indefinitely, you can help put a stop to it by arguing against your fellow “Spinners”. Off you pop.
The ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis observed from an accelerated frame. Relativity is too hard for DREMT.
From the frame of reference in which the origin is in the center of the orbit, and the Cartesian axes remain pointing towards distant fixed stars, the ball on a string is rotating about an axis that is external to the ball, and not about its own center of mass.
From the frame of reference in which the origin is in the center of the orbit, and the Cartesian axes remain pointing towards distant fixed stars, the disk is rotating about an axis that is external to the disk, and not about its own center of mass as observed from the accelerated frame.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
If I had meant “from the accelerated frame” I would have said “from the accelerated frame”.
So write “accelerated frame” next time and show progress to become more competent in physics instead of incompetently stuck where you are.
I’m not going to say “from the accelerated frame” because I don’t mean “from the accelerated frame”.
Bindidon: “This is absolutely uninteresting for me: I’m neither a Spinner let alone a Non-Spinner.”
The rats are leaving their sinking ship.
” You are a ‘Spinner’ because you think the moon rotates on its own axis. ”
Wrong again and again.
Under a ‘Spinner’ I understand a person who tries to contradict ‘Non-Spinners’ on the base of their toy fantasy world, instead of correctly replying that this world, and its adjacent pseudo-scientific discussion about so-called ‘curvilinear translations’ are thoroughly inadequate to discuss about Moon’s spin.
From the beginning I managed to keep equidistant from both the ‘Non-Spinners’ and the ‘Spinners’.
*
” So, to stop these ‘baby toy’ games from carrying on indefinitely, you can help put a stop to it by arguing against your fellow ‘Spinners’.
NO.
The only way to stop these stoopid baby toy games is to start a scientific discussion based on the contradiction, piece by piece, of what scientific persons have written until now about Moon’s spin.
But from that you conveniently and carefully keep away.
*
Even if I would download and generate on my computer the highly complex software developed at DLR (the German Aviation and Space agency)
https://github.com/cosmoscout/cosmoscout-vr
and would show you the results, you still would keep denying Moon’s spin, by saying:
“That is nothing else than an abstract, mathematical construct, it’s faked, not reality”.
This is EXACTLY the same behavior as that shown by Flatearthists who say:
” Don’t offer us movies from the ISS showing Earth is a sphere: that’s all faked stuff! “.
*
How many Tesla’s, do you think, have produced in the last century ‘scientific’ proofs that Earth can’t be a sphere, or that the heliocentric view of the planetary system is bare nonsense?
Maybe they will convince you?
J.-P. D.
No, a “Spinner” is just somebody who thinks the moon rotates on its own axis, for whatever reason. So you are definitely a “Spinner”, I’m afraid. Though I can understand you wanting to distance yourself from those who think a ball on a string is rotating on its own axis. When you start arguing against these people you can truly distance yourself properly. Off you pop.
The moon rotates on its own axis as observed by the sun or there would be no day/night cycles on the moon. See the sun position and day/night cycles here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
You have linked to ftop_t’s Desmos work, which shows an object rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass (note that only the external axis rotation slider is moving).
I have linked to ftop_t’s Desmos work, which shows the sun’s day/night cycles on the spinning object which is an object rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass (note that only the external axis rotation slider is moving) as observed in the accelerated frame with that slider set to 0 rotations in the accelerated frame).
If I had meant “from the accelerated frame” I would have said “from the accelerated frame”.
So write “accelerated frame” next time and show progress to become more competent in physics instead of stuck incompetently where you are.
I’m not going to say “from the accelerated frame” because I don’t mean “from the accelerated frame”.
DREMT,
Let me fix that for you
“Im not going to say from the accelerated frame because I dont mean from the accelerated frame.”
try
I’m not going to say “from the accelerated frame” because I don’t know the difference between an accelerated frame and an inertial frame.
Whatever you say, bob.
In that case I say you are a crackpot and an asshole.
Not a good combo.
OK, bob, make yourself look as bad as you want.
” Off you pop. ”
Ridiculous.
Feel free to decide what IN YOUR (and in your friends’) MIND a Spinner is or is not: I decide how I view myself, basta ya.
J.-P. D.
You are a "Spinner", because you believe the moon rotates on its own axis. It’s pretty simple, Bindidon. Now, why don’t you go and set Ball4 straight.
Off you pop.
” Now, why dont you go and set Ball4 straight. ”
Well, simply because that, DREMT, is your job. YOUR job!
You are the Non-spinner…
And you won’t decide when I leave what for which reason.
I do that, DREMT, and nobody else. ¡Basta ya!
You can now reply with your stubborn ‘Off you pop’ as long as you want; that won’t change a bit for me. No chance.
J.-P. D.
No, it is your job, because you are aware that the ball on a string does not rotate on its own axis. Off you pop.
binny…”Why is it so hard to accept that you cant compare such a complex movement composition as shown by the Moon (extremely slow spin overlying its orbiting) …”
Why can you not understand that the moment the Moon begins its theoretical spin, the near face MUST stop pointing at the Earth? Furthermore, to complete a 360 degree rotation, at some point (the half-orbit point) the near face MUST point away from the Earth.
I gave you an experiment to try with two coins. It is not possible to move one coin around the other while turning the moving coin through 360 degrees. You cannot keep the same face pointed to the centre of the fixed coin.
The only way to complete one revolution of the moving coin around the fixed coin, while keeping the same face pointed to the centre of the fixed coin is to SLIDE it, which is translation. Of course, you have to continually adjust the moving coin to keep the same face inward but that’s exactly what gravity does to the real Moon.
The Moon is translating in an orbit and that explains everything. The spinning theory explains nothing.
Gordon, why can you not understand that the moment the Moon begins its theoretical spin more or less than once per orbit, the near face MUST stop pointing at the Earth?
So answer this question, Ball4.
How does an object that is orbiting, but not rotating on its own axis, remain oriented whilst it orbits? In other words, which direction does it face throughout the orbit?
” How does an object that is orbiting, but not rotating on its own axis, remain oriented whilst it orbits? ”
It’s a good question, but it creates a problem for you.
An object rotating on its axis is self-stabilising, the axis continues to point in the same direction unless perturbed (gyroscope, anyone?).
If the Moon is not rotating around its axis, how has it kept true polar wander below 6 degrees?
https://earthsky.org/space/moons-tilt-has-changed-over-time#:
“If the Moon is not rotating around its axis, how has it kept true polar wander below 6 degrees?”
It’s called “pure orbital motion”.
“It’s a good question”
Yes, I’m hoping to get some answers.
DREMT 6:06am, already answered both questions, see here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/#comment-615003
That is not a direct answer to the question, but from it we can infer that your answer would be, “it keeps one face oriented towards the same distant star, whilst it moves”.
That is the “Spinner” position on how an object that is “orbiting but not rotating on its own axis” remains oriented. Entropic Man agreed that earlier when he commented about the Hubble Telescope, and even bobdroege eventually agreed that.
The “Non-Spinner” position on how an object that is “orbiting but not rotating on its own axis” remains oriented, is that it keeps one face oriented towards the inside of the orbit, whilst it moves.
That is the fundamental difference between the two “sides”. Note that it has nothing to do with reference frames.
The “Non-Spinner” position remains on how an object that is “orbiting but not rotating on its own axis” in the accelerated frame remains oriented, is that it keeps one face oriented towards the inside of the orbit, whilst it moves.
As shown here with the relevant slider set to 0 rotations on the object’s own axis in the accelerated frame:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
Both positions (when stated correctly) have the object moving as shown in the cartesian coordinates.
ClintR,
Who calls it pure orbital motion
I know just who.
No, Ball4. That is not what I’m saying. If you want to bring reference frames into it, then both of the following statements apply as observed from the inertial reference frame:
The “Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same side of the body remains oriented towards the same distant star, whilst it moves.
The “Non-Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion in which the same side of the body remains oriented towards the inside of the orbit, whilst it moves.
So there is no difference between our positions wrt reference frames. The difference is simply how each side describes “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
Stated correctly the “Non-Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” from the accelerated frame as motion in which the same side of the body remains oriented towards the inside of the orbit, whilst it moves.
As shown here with the relevant slider set to 0 rotations on the object’s own axis in the “non-spinner” accelerated frame:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
Both positions (when stated correctly) have the object moving as shown in the cartesian coordinates. The non-spinners are simply observing from the accelerated frame as ftop_t desmos shows.
That’s all there is to it.
Wrong again, Ball4. I will make it even clearer.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File%3ATidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
The “Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” as movement like the “moon on the right” in the above gif.
The “Non-Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” as movement like the “moon on the left” in the above gif.
The “Non-Spinners” see “orbital motion without axial rotation” in the accelerated frame as movement like the “moon on the left” in the above gif.
That’s all there is to it.
The left gif shows a completely different movement to the right gif.
So there is a fundamental difference between the movement that each “side” defines as “orbital motion without axial rotation”. This difference transcends reference frames.
Sure, the right side .gif is obviously not Earth’s current moon motion in the inertial frame, it just has photo of our moon. There are many moons with fundamental differences between their movements in the inertial frame.
The right side gif represents how “Spinners” see an object that is “orbiting” and not “rotating on its own axis”.
DREMT,
Sorry Charlie
“So there is a fundamental difference between the movement that each “side” defines as “orbital motion without axial rotation”
You don’t get to redefine the terms in order to “win” an argument.
I’m not redefining terms, bob. You agree with me that “revolution” is just another word for “rotation about an external axis”. Well, that’s the motion displayed by the “moon on the left”. The “moon on the left” is rotating about an external axis, without rotating about its own center of mass.
DREMPT,
If you are not redefining terms, then you can make your argument without using the terms “orbital motion without axial rotation” and pure orbital motion.
“I’m not redefining terms, bob. You agree with me that “revolution” is just another word for “rotation about an external axis”. Well, that’s the motion displayed by the “moon on the left”. The “moon on the left” is rotating about an external axis, without rotating about its own center of mass.”
I have tried to move past the revolution part and try to concentrate on the definition of rotation around an internal axis.
Which the object on the left is doing, rotating around an internal axis, as well as rotating around an external axis.
The object on the right is rotating around an external axis but not rotating around an internal axis.
You have changed the rotational period of the Moon from once every 27 days to zero, by changing the definition of rotation.
So don’t give me that “I am not redefining terms” jazz.
"Which the object on the left is doing, rotating around an internal axis, as well as rotating around an external axis."
Absolutely not, bob. If the object on the left was rotating around an internal axis, as well as rotating around an external axis, you would see all sides of the object from the center of revolution. That is just a fact about rotation I’m afraid.
"The object on the right is rotating around an external axis but not rotating around an internal axis."
Absolutely not, bob. Everybody else on your side of the argument would define that movement as a translation of the object in a circle without rotating around an internal axis.
The object on the right is neither Earth’s moon current motion nor a ball on string motion so it is a red herring. DREMT should stick to definitions as found in Merriam-Webster.
Here is the proper motion similar to Earth’s moon and ball on string rotating once per orbit on their own axes in the cartesian frame set up by ftop_t that DREMT simply observes from the accelerated frame:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
That’s all there is to it.
Ball4 proves once again that he is unable to follow a discussion.
DREMT,
No
“Everybody else on your side of the argument would define that movement as a translation of the object in a circle without rotating around an internal axis.”
A translation does not involve a change in orientation.
I’m afraid SGW agrees with me on this.
Something that is translating just can’t go in a circle.
Unless of course, that it is also rotating.
You are contradicting yourself, bob, without even realizing it. Lol.
DREMT,
You don’t understand a shred of this discussion, and just make contrary statements to be contrary and an asshole.
LOL OTFG
bob, try to work out whether you are arguing the “moon on the right” is:
1) Rotating about an external axis without rotating about its internal axis.
or
2) Translating in a circle without rotating about its internal axis.
Hint: it can’t be both.
Further Hint: The “moon on the left” is doing 1), not the “moon on the right”.
DREMT,
Since an object can’t be translating in a circle, it’s not that one.
“Further Hint: The moon on the left is doing 1), ”
Only because in your little mind, you have defined orbital motion without axial rotation that way.
That definition is incorrect, you don’t get to do that.
Use the proper definitions or be a crackpot.
Those are your choices.
But I see you have the Kung Foo death grip on the crackpot mantle, and wear it well.
“Since an object can’t be translating in a circle, it’s not that one.”
Everybody else on your side of the argument would disagree, bob. They would describe the motion of the “moon on the right” as translating, because as you said “a translation does not involve a change in orientation”, and “the moon on the right” is not changing its orientation whilst it moves. And an object can translate in a circle, it is just “curvilinear translation” until the “curve” becomes a loop.
The “moon on the left” is rotating about an external axis and not rotating about its internal axis, not because I have defined it that way, but simply because that is the way that motion is defined. See the definition I posted further up-thread, see Madhavi Fig. 2(b), see online transmographers, see ftop_t’s mathematical proof.
DREMT,
You forgot the other requirement for linear translation, that all parts are moving at the same velocity in the same direction, check out what SGW has posted about translation.
I said same velocity and same direction even though that’s redundant because you don’t seem to have a grasp of the mechanics and science involved.
Remember all parts of the Moon are not moving at the same velocity.
So it’s not my side of the argument
And check your Madhavi source for how she defined translation. Both curvilinear and linear, since you don’t seem to understand the requirements of both kinds of motion.
See my mathematical proof that a ball on a string is rotating on its own internal axis.
You didn’t bother to try to debunk that.
Because you can’t.
“Remember all parts of the Moon are not moving at the same velocity.”
That’s right, bob. But we are not talking about our Moon, which is represented by the “moon on the left” in the gif we are discussing. We are talking about the “moon on the right”. All parts of the “moon on the right” are moving at the same velocity.
DREMT,
Since you only care about me being wrong, and not getting the science right, I think you have fell into a hole again and lost the argument.
If the Moon on the right is translating, and I’ll admit that would be correct, and that I was wrong to say it wasn’t translating.
However, if it it translating, that means it is not rotating on its own internal axis, so it is an example of an object orbiting without axial rotation.
And if the one on the right is not rotating on its internal axis, then the one on the left has to be rotating on its internal axis, as well as rotating on an external axis.
So again, thanks for playing, and welcome to the spinners club.
Spinner Spinner Chicken Dinner.
bob, admitting you were wrong about something is a good start, but don’t try and twist my words. I said that everybody else on your side of the argument would describe the “moon on the right” as translating, and not rotating on its own axis. I didn’t say I would describe it that way.
From the “Non-Spinner” perspective, the “moon on the right” is rotating about an external axis, and rotating about its own internal axis once per orbit, in the opposite direction to the orbital motion.
What is important about you admitting that you were wrong about the “moon on the right” is that you can no longer argue that it is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating on its internal axis, which is what you said originally. Which means that you have to pick a different motion to fit that description. Like the “moon on the left”.
Second point is, you have already agreed that “revolution” means “rotation about an external axis”. So you can’t now try to argue that “revolution” means “translation in a circle”, instead.
So welcome to the “Non-Spinners” club.
Non-Spinner Non-Spinner chicken dinner.
DREMT,
Let’s just stick to your own words then
“The moon on the left is rotating about an external axis and not rotating about its internal axis, not because I have defined it that way, but simply because that is the way that motion is defined. See the definition I posted further up-thread, see Madhavi Fig. 2(b), see online transmographers, see ftop_ts mathematical proof.”
1) See my mathematical proof that a ball rotating on a string is rotating on an axis within the ball as well as an axis outside the ball, and try to refute it if you can.
2) on line transmographes, is that your idea of a source for a definition of rotation about an internal axis? All the ones I have seen referred to show an object rotating around two axes.
3) Look at Madhivi fig 5 and compare to your fig 2(b), if your were smart you would see the similarities.
The Moon is doing both rotation about an axis through its body and about an axis external to its body.
DREMT,
Let’s just stick to your own words then
“The moon on the left is rotating about an external axis and not rotating about its internal axis, not because I have defined it that way, but simply because that is the way that motion is defined. See the definition I posted further up-thread, see Madhavi Fig. 2(b), see online transmographers, see ftop_ts mathematical proof.”
1) See my mathematical proof that a ball rotating on a string is rotating on an axis within the ball as well as an axis outside the ball, and try to refute it if you can.
2) on line transmographes, is that your idea of a source for a definition of rotation about an internal axis? All the ones I have seen referred to show an object rotating around two axes.
3) Look at Madhivi fig 5 and compare to your fig 2(b), if your were smart you would see the similarities.
The Moon is doing both rotation about an axis through its body and about an axis external to its body.
And your position that the Moon on the right is rotating on its axis, is wrong as that motion does not meet the definition of rotation by Madhavi, fig 5.
bob, you like trying to change the subject when you’re in trouble, but I’m not going to let you.
You have agreed that the “moon on the right” is not an example of “rotating about an external axis, without rotating on its own internal axis”.
So, what type of motion do you believe is an example of “rotating about an external axis, without rotating on its own internal axis”?
Show me a link to a gif, or a diagram, showing what you believe is that motion.
DREMPT,
Um, no I haven’t agreed to the following.
“You have agreed that the moon on the right is not an example of rotating about an external axis, without rotating on its own internal axis.”
It is rotating on an external axis without rotating on an internal axis.
I was pointing out that your position that the moon on the right is rotating once per orbit clockwise.
That’s all made of fairy dust.
“If the Moon on the right is translating, and I’ll admit that would be correct, and that I was wrong to say it wasn’t translating”
bob, if you think the “moon on the right” is “translating”, then you don’t think that it is “rotating about an external axis and not rotating on its internal axis”. It cannot be both, because translation does not equal rotation.
DREMT,
Translation and rotating are not mutually exclusive, and object can be doing both at the same time.
A motion can be the sum of a translation and a rotation, such as the path of a bullet.
“It cannot be both, because translation does not equal rotation.”
That statement of yours is just utter nonsense.
Let’s see if you can admit you are wrong on that point.
What else you got?
Yes bob, a motion can be the sum of a translation plus a rotation, but that is not what we are talking about, is it? We are talking about a motion that is one single thing. It is either a translation or it is a rotation. Which one are you going for?
DREMT,
The question is whether the Moon on the right is rotating on an internal axis or not.
Rotating on an external axis or translating are red herrings.
So tell me how the Moon on the right is rotating on an internal axis once per revolution clockwise in accordance with any reference such as Madhavi?
bob, you can’t wriggle your way out of this one. As I said earlier, you need to work out whether you are arguing the “moon on the right” is:
1) Rotating about an external axis without rotating about its internal axis.
or
2) Translating in a circle without rotating about its internal axis.
because so far you have argued it is doing 1), then when challenged on that you argued it was doing 2), then when I pointed out it can’t be doing both you went back to saying it was doing 1) again, and now you keep trying to change the subject! If you settle on 2) then that means 1) must be represented by the “moon on the left”, and I can welcome you to the “Non-Spinners” club.
Non-Spinner Non-Spinner Chicken Dinner.
DREMT,
It’s doing both, your claim that it can’t is without merit and your argument has no standing.
Translating in a circle maintaining the same orientation and rotating around an external axis without rotating around an internal axis are two ways to say the same thing.
The question is your position that it is rotating on an internal axis.
“Translating in a circle maintaining the same orientation and rotating around an external axis without rotating around an internal axis are two ways to say the same thing.”
Absolutely not, blob. You are completely delusional and there is no point talking to you. You have utterly jumped the shark if you are going to sit there and argue that there is no difference between rotation and translation.
The “moon on the left” is the one rotating around an external axis without rotating around an internal axis, as per Madhavi Fig. 2(b), online transmographers, the definition I linked to earlier, ftop_t’s mathematical proof, and even according to others on your own side of the argument. Until you accept that, this discussion is over.
“From the ‘Non-Spinner’ perspective, the ‘moon on the right’ is rotating about an external axis, and rotating about its own internal axis once per orbit”
IOW from an IMAGINARY perspective, something that is clearly NOT ROTATING is actually rotating.
It is just that it is rotating both CW and CCW at the same time!
Sure. Aerospace engineers take note!
Oh and never mind that CW rotation around the Moon’s axis has the ability to cancel Rotation that is NOT around the Moon’s axis!?
That is truly weird.
“The question is your position that it is rotating on an internal axis.”
To understand that the “moon on the right” is rotating on an internal axis, all you need to do is be able to mentally add two motions together. Just add the motion of the “moon on the left” (which is “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about its own internal axis”) to the motion “rotating on its own internal axis, once per orbit, in the opposite direction to the orbital motion”.
If you are unable to process it mentally, then watch this video from 3:58 onwards, where they actually show it for you in a way that even you should be able to understand:
https://youtu.be/ey1dSUfmjBw
Uggh. You dont see the flaws? Earth and moon turning as one body together?? Pointless.
As noted by Tim, rotation is rotation is rotation. And no rotation is simply that. The Moon on the right has no rotation. Someone standing on it could easily verify, no rotation.
But let your imagination run wild. It makes no difference.
Well good then DREMT,
You don’t understand how translating in a circle can be the same thing as rotating on an external axis without rotating on its internal axis.
You don’t understand a lot.
“Until you accept that, this discussion is over.”
Good, how about an order of fries, then.
You are no good at science, go ahead and declare me delusional. I assume you are equally good at psychology.
Translation is not the same thing as rotation. You lost the argument when you said it was.
Sorry for your loss.
DREMT
3:58 in the video I found for you.
The dude actually proves the moon rotates despite what he says.
What the Moon is doing + Rotate the Moon clockwise = The Moon not rotating
Solve for what the Moon is doing and you get the Moon is rotating counterclockwise.
And here you are trying to quote me out of context.
“Translation is not the same thing as rotation. You lost the argument when you said it was.”
I never said translation is not the same as rotation.
I said translation in a circle is the same as rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
Which is a true statement.
“What the Moon is doing + Rotate the Moon clockwise = The Moon not rotating”
No, bob. The moon in the video only appears to not rotate on its own axis. The objective reality is that it is rotating on its own axis, because there is a motor which is continually rotating the moon regardless of whether it is orbiting or stationary.
“I said translation in a circle is the same as rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
Which is a true statement.”
No, bob. It is a false statement, and with that statement you lost the argument. Sorry for your loss.
” because there is a motor which is continually rotating the moon”
Uhhh, there is no motor on the real moon.
If its spinning, then it simply continues to do so, all on its own. Its a physics thing.
“What the Moon is doing + Rotate the Moon clockwise = The Moon not rotating
Solve for what the Moon is doing and you get the Moon is rotating counterclockwise.”
Well put Bob. Exactly!
I would just add ‘on its axis’ to ‘Rotate the moon clockwise’.
We can all agree, unless we are clinically insane, that the Moon on the right is NOT ROTATING wrt the inertial frame.
To go from non-rotating moon on the right to the Moon on the Left, all agree that we need to ADD CW axial rotation.
The actually rotating Moon on the LEFT has axial rotation.
QED
Don’t forget, bob, even people on your own side of the argument agree that the “moon on the left” is “rotating about an external axis without rotating about its own internal axis”:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-566712
@DREMT,
This all revolves (pun intended) around a complete inability to understand the importance of defining where the axis of rotation is for circular motion – a rotation.
Those arguing on the other side have demonstrated that they cannot accurately determine the location of the axis of rotation and therefore cannot understand the motion.
To claim “As noted by Tim, rotation is rotation is rotation” is not correct.
An object moves differently based on where its axis of rotation is:
Internal
External
This is a blue bar rotating around a specific point. The point of rotation is not arbitrary and it does not change.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/wnxdr8vq03
What letter represents the axis of rotation?
@Ball4 has suggested that if you stand at a point (say (0,7)) the axis is at Point C because it is in an accelerated frame
@Nate suggests that the axis of rotation is arbitrary and you can change it based on a view from standing on the bar or by finding some center of mass on the blue bar.
This is an example of this arbitrary view: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/#comment-610653
Both of these positions are not correct. The axis of rotation is definitive and its location does not change. There is only one correct answer to this question:
What letter represents the axis of rotation?
Until this is accepted, there is no point in pursuing the discussion.
FTOP,
Earlier you used the DESMOS tool to show that an elliptical orbit is, erroneously, a rotation.
In kinematics a ROTATION is DEFINED to be a circular motion around a point.
No program can be used to ‘prove’ that an ellipse = a circle.
And your DESMOS elliptical ‘orbit’ did not behave in anyway like a planet in orbit, which orbits around a FOCUS of the ellipse not the CENTER. And speeds up and slows down, while your planet did not.
The Desmos tool seems to be an excellent way to obfuscate. And you should not be ignoring basic physics.
“This is a blue bar rotating around a specific point.”
Indeed the blue bar is a PURE ROTATION. But in can EQUALLY well be described as a CM TRANSLATION along the circular orbit plus a ROTATION around its CM. It is equivalent.
BUT this latter description is used for all planetary orbits because most are NOT PURE ROTATIONS.
According to the Kinematics Textbook oft quoted by DREMT, an elliptical orbit is NOT a pure rotation, thus can ONLY be described as General Plane Motion.
IOW it can only be described as a Translation of the CM on a curved path plus a rotation around its CM.
X marks the spot, ftop_t.
“Until this is accepted, there is no point in pursuing the discussion.”
There is little point in pursuing this discussion until the “Spinners” start arguing amongst themselves. Currently I am arguing with bob, who thinks (correctly) that revolution/orbit is just another word for “rotation about an external axis”, however he has got it into his head (incorrectly) that the “moon on the right” is the representation of “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” rather than the “moon on the left”.
Meanwhile, my stalker who I no longer respond to accepts that the “moon on the left” is the correct representation of “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis”, but he (incorrectly) does not accept that revolution/orbit is just another word for “rotation about an external axis”. Yet they won’t debate each other, they both just want to argue against me! Very strange. I mean if you combined the right aspects of both their positions then you could end up with one viewpoint in complete agreement with my own.
@Nate,
All rotations are derived from the conic sections for a cone
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conic_section
Circle = (a * cos (theta), a * sin (theta))
Ellipse = (a * cos (theta), b * sin (theta))
A circle is where the amplitude for length and width are equal, whereas an ellipse is where they are different.
What letter represents the axis of rotation?
FTOP in KINEMATICS OF RIGID BODIES which is the field we are discussing, a ROTATION must be a circular motion.
“Translation, rectilinear and curvilinear: Motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position. The motion of the body is completely specified by the motion of any point in the body. All points of the body have the same velocity and same acceleration.
Rotation about a fixed axis: All particles move in circular paths about the axis of rotation. The motion of the body is completely determined by the angular velocity of the rotation.
General plane motion: Any plane motion that is neither a pure rotation nor a translation falls into this class. However, as we will see below, a general plane motion can always be reduced to the sum of a translation and a rotation. ”
https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En4/notes_old/RigidKinematics/rigkin.htm
You cannot change the definitions to suit your needs.
“my stalker who I no longer respond to” but I do go back 2 months to find his posts and repost them.
DREMT and Bob,
Notice that the definition of Translation above from the Kinematics of Rigid Bodies lecture, perfectly describes the motion of the Moon on the right.
“Motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position. The motion of the body is completely specified by the motion of any point in the body. All points of the body have the same velocity and same acceleration.”
Thus according to the strict Kinematics definitions, the Moon on the right is simply Translating and NOT rotating.
Of course its translation is along a curved path, ie curvilinear translation.
That means that the Moon on the LEFT can be obtained, as Bob argued, by simply by adding a CCW axial rotation to the Translating Moon on the Right.
bob,
Notice that the definition of “Rotation about a fixed axis” above from the Kinematics of Rigid Bodies lecture, perfectly describes the motion of the “moon on the left”.
“Rotation about a fixed axis: All particles move in circular paths about the axis of rotation. The motion of the body is completely determined by the angular velocity of the rotation.”
Thus according to the strict Kinematics definitions, the “moon on the left” is simply rotating about a fixed, external axis and NOT rotating on its own axis.
That means that the “moon on the RIGHT” can be obtained by simply adding a CW axial rotation to the Rotating about a fixed, external axis “moon on the left”.
“That means that the ‘moon on the RIGHT’ can be obtained by simply adding a CW axial rotation to the Rotating about a fixed, external axis ‘moon on the left’.”
The Moon on the Left can, as already noted, can ALSO be described as a pure rotation (PR)
When you remove its rotation you are left with a pure Translation (T).
Removal of its CCW rotation can be done by subtracting a CCW axial rotation (CCWAR).
PR-CCWAR = T
or PR = T + CCWAR
Again we are left with the problem that the REAL MOON is not a PR because it is IN AN ELLIPTICAL ORBIT.
It can ONLY be described as T + CCWAR, ie a general plane motion.
DREMT,
“Rotation about a fixed axis: All particles move in circular paths about the axis of rotation. The motion of the body is completely determined by the angular velocity of the rotation.
Thus according to the strict Kinematics definitions, the moon on the left is simply rotating about a fixed, external axis and NOT rotating on its own axis.”
Except that the moon on the left, are particles are not moving at the same velocity, some are moving faster than others. Since that same velocity is a requirement.
“Motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position. The motion of the body is completely specified by the motion of any point in the body. All points of the body have the same velocity and same acceleration.
Since the points on the Moon are moving at different velocities, and the Moon remains a solid body, something must be happening that prevents its destruction, namely that the Moon is rotating.
ftop_t 12:03pm, an object is observed to move differently based on where the observer is located, this is long known as relativity (since Galileo Galilei). An object’s axis of rotation can be:
Internal
External
This is a blue bar rotating around two axes through two specific points. The external axis of rotation through point 0,0 is not arbitrary and it does not change. The internal axis of rotation through point C is not arbitrary and it does not change either.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/wnxdr8vq03
The blue bar rotates once on its internal axis per orbit of the external axis as observed from inertial cartesian frame at 0,0 by the spinners. Just like the nonzero radius object system shown here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
Observed from point C in the accelerated frame, the same object is observed to not rotate on its own axis (and can be transformed back to inertial frame (0,0)*) which is consistent with DREMT’s non-spinner observing position at point C for the same blue bar and at the same time as the spinners.
*See: McComb, W. D. (1999). “Dynamics and relativity”, Oxford University Press. pp. 22-24. ISBN 0-19-850112-9.
NB: this blue bar motion is as shown in Madhavi Fig. 2(b) Rotation.
bob, I don’t know if you are knowingly and intentionally mixing up the definitions of “rotation about a fixed axis” and “translation”, or if it’s just by accident, but that’s what you’re doing.
Ball4, the difference between the “Non Spinners” and the “Spinners” transcends reference frames, as previously explained, since the “moon on the left” and the “moon on the right” (which is how each group perceives “orbital motion without axial rotation”) are two completely different motions, regardless of from which reference frame they are observed.
I see that DREMT continues the charade that facts can be forever ignored:
“Again we are left with the problem that the REAL MOON is not a PR because it is IN AN ELLIPTICAL ORBIT.”
DREMT 2:05am does get that right, the moon on the right is a fundamentally different motion than Earth’s moon, ball on string, toy train, fixed wooden mgr horse, Tesla’s “fixt” ball M, and ftop_t’s demo. here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
…so the right moon motion can be ignored in this debate. DREMT has lost the debate about the left moon motion years ago. Sorry for your loss DREMT. I observe DREMT cannot possibly move on, stuck endlessly on the losing side of the debate about the left moon rotational motion. DREMT’s resistance is futile.
“so the right moon motion can be ignored in this debate.”
Only if you want to deliberately miss the point. The “moon on the right” is how the “Spinners” perceive “orbital motion without axial rotation”, which (as you have agreed) is a fundamentally different motion to the “moon on the left”, which is how the “Non-Spinners” perceive “orbital motion without axial rotation”. The difference between the two motions transcends reference frames, thus the difference between the two groups transcends reference frames. Which means your previous comment is debunked, Ball4. Which means you have lost the argument. Sorry for your loss.
Your resistance is futile DREMT. The moon on the right really is fundamentally different. The debate is about the moon motion on the left for which DREMT has found no physical support for DREMT’s losing arguments for many years now.
Not only have I found plenty of support for my arguments, Ball4, but there are even “Spinners” who agree that the “moon on the left” is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own internal axis.
Your resistance is futile DREMT. Or show the physical evidence support. There is none to show, only years of failed assertions.
I’m sorry for your argument loss, but happy with the win.
DREMPT,
Let me see if I can explain it to you, highly unlikely but here goes.
Your claim
“bob, I don’t know if you are knowingly and intentionally mixing up the definitions of “rotation about a fixed axis” and “translation”, or if it’s just by accident, but that’s what you’re doing.”
Only for the very special case of the Moon on the right, which is the special case that does not exist in nature to my knowledge.
If an object that is translating in a circle, but not rotating, ie keeping the same orientation or face pointed in the same direction, this is the same as rotation about a fixed axis, also with no change in orientation or face pointing in the same direction.
This is the case with the Moon on the right, which is orbiting but not rotating. It is also translating without rotating.
I don’t know why you don’t understand this, but since you think the Moon isn’t rotating, it is no wonder.
Yes bob, you have already lost the argument by saying that “translating in a circle” and “rotating about an external axis without rotating about an internal axis” are the same thing. They are not, and even those on your own side of the argument disagree with you. Stop embarrassing yourself.
Thats OK.
DREMT already lost the argument (Again) by continually demanding that we “accept that revolution/orbit is just another word for ‘rotation about an external axis'” while failing to acknowledge that the definition he JUST QUOTED for ‘Rotation about a fixed axis’ FAILS TO WORK for MOST ORBITS like the elliptical orbit of the MOON, which CANNOT possibly manage to have “All particles move in circular paths about the axis of rotation” that is required by the definition he just quoted.
“Notice that the definition of ‘Rotation about a fixed axis’ above from the Kinematics of Rigid Bodies lecture, perfectly describes the motion of the ‘moon on the left’.
‘Rotation about a fixed axis: All particles move in circular paths about the axis of rotation. The motion of the body is completely determined by the angular velocity of the rotation.’
After not facing up to this obvious truth for the 47th time, we are no longer sorry his loss.
Forgot to say…nice comment at 2:02 PM February 24, ftop_t. That settles that.
“nice comment at 2:02 PM February 24, ftop_t. That settles that.”
Amazingly comical.
It was ‘settled’ for about 30 s until you started using, quoting, and arguing with, the same Rigid Body Kinematic definitions that prove FTOP totally wrong.
And he fled the scene with his tail between his legs.
Youve driven yourself to intellectual bankruptcy over this issue.
Just to reiterate, for no particular reason…nice comment at 2:02 PM February 24, ftop_t. That settles that.
Since my post ended up in “moderation” purgatory, I’ll try breaking it up into two (2) posts
@Ball4
This comment is FUNDAMENTALLY wrong: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/#comment-622672
The axis of rotation is X = (0,0). It is definitive and it does not change Point C is NOT an axis of rotation from any reference frame. Stating such is just WRONG. I demonstrated this before.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/himm2vnsu6
The purple dot is the axis of rotation for the orbit (0,0)
The orange dot is the axis of rotation for the object.
The green dot is the location of the orange dot during the orbital motion
The orange dot can be dragged anywhere in the grid, and when axial rotation is initiated the triangle will rotate around that axis.
Without axial rotation, if I drag the axis to a corner, the orbital motion does not change because it is only rotating around (0,0)
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/ango3zt6me
I can even drag it outside of the object and it does not change the orbital motion
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/2fskhldbdy
Part II
Conversely, if there is rotation about the orange dot (axial rotation) the orbital motion changes If the axis is in the corner
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/wkjvrtvmil
If the axis is outside of the object https://www.desmos.com/calculator/mezqptmg90
In order to prove that the only rotation is about the origin, you can drag the orange dot to the origin. Thus proving the only axis of rotation is external, and it is at the origin
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/8rmu4rt7hw
This is not debatable.
You cant just choose to declare Point C an axis when it can be located anywhere and its location does not cause any change in behavior.
“Point C is NOT an axis of rotation from any reference frame.”
Yet the blue bar rotates about an axis perpendicular through point C. How do you explain that away?
DREMPT,
You say
“Yes bob, you have already lost the argument by saying that translating in a circle and rotating about an external axis without rotating about an internal axis are the same thing. They are not, and even those on your own side of the argument disagree with you.
How about you show how translating in a circle is different from rotating about an external axis without rotating around an internal axis.
Claiming others disagree does not win the argument. Show in your own words how they are different, other wise, it is you who is embarrassing himself.
“Stop embarrassing yourself.” says the guy who thinks the Moon isn’t rotating on its own axis.
Find your local astronomy club and stop wasting time.
@Nate
The argument that the moon must have axial rotation because it is traversing a non-circular (elliptical) orbit is not logically supportable.
A circle is just a form of an ellipse and there is no limitation on varying amplitude to determine curvature using rotational formulas.
I would post this question. Since the argument is that the moon is rotating on its axis and this is an independent motion from its orbital motion, what keeps the axial rotation synchronized with the growing size of the moon’s orbital path?
The moon is receding. This is a given. As the orbital period changes the axial rotation must adjust to match.
If there is a 1:1 resonance between the orbital period and the axial rotation what causes the axial rotation to slow down exactly the amount necessary to keep this resonance as the moon slowly recedes from the earth and the orbital period gets longer?
Does it just happen magically?
Ftop,
“The argument that the moon must have axial rotation because it is traversing a non-circular (elliptical) orbit is not logically supportable.”
The Moon has axial rotation because it is observed to have axial rotation.
End of story.
Look up Cassini.
Period phucking paragraf
OK bob, keep embarrassing yourself. It’s funnier that way.
@Ball4
There is no observable rotation around Point C, Point A or Point B.
The only point of rotation is Point X
This is not debatable. It is basic geometry.
There is also not a rainbow unicorn in the DESMOS graph either, claiming one exists does not make it true.
Keep reviewing this until you understand the behavior of motion based on the location of an axis of rotation.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/#comment-624013
DREMT,
I am not embarrassed at all, but then again, I am not the one flunking grade school science.
How’s that feel to be an eighth grade drop out?
You’ve lost the argument, bob.
DREMT
How can I lose against someone who didn’t make an argument!
You are spitting your binky like Flynn.
#2
You’ve lost the argument, bob.
DREMT,
Gee, let’s see how high you can count!
#3
You’ve lost the argument, bob.
Ftop_t, there is easily observable rotation around Point C of the blue bar except as observed from the accelerated frame rotating with the blue bar. This is basic relativity.
Ball4, the difference between the “Non Spinners” and the “Spinners” transcends reference frames, as previously explained, since the “moon on the left” and the “moon on the right” (which is how each group perceives “orbital motion without axial rotation”) are two completely different motions, regardless of from which reference frame they are observed.
ftop_t blubbers:
Point C is NOT an axis of rotation from any reference frame. Stating such is just WRONG
Place a translating cartesian coordinate system with its origin at point C. The blue bar will be seen rotating about the origin (point C).
ftop_t appears to be stuck on geometry and has not moved on to kinematics.
Yes, from such a reference frame the blue bar would appear to be rotating on its own axis. That’s the illusion we’re talking about. In reality the blue bar is rotating only about X.
@SGW,
“Place a translating cartesian coordinate system with its origin at point C. The blue bar will be seen rotating about the origin (point C).”
Nope. That is completely arbitrary. You could place a translating cartesian coordinate system with its origin anywhere between point B and (0,0) and the behavior does not change because that arbitrary axis does not exist.
There is one (1) axis of rotation located at (9,0)
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/nei3bjhmij
If I move the axis to (8.24,2.22) the behavior changes
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/txujsxuked
If I move the axis outside of the object (12,0), it now rotates around a point outside the object and there is no internal axis of rotation
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/dkfi7sw5iw
If I move the axis to (0,0) there is still one (1) axis of rotation – at point (0,0), just like the blue bar
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/k2g7fasuli
When I use the origin as the axis of rotation instead of the orange dot, the orange dot becomes completely arbitrary.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/fsnq0pdyno
There is only one axis of rotation – at the origin
“You could place a translating cartesian coordinate system with its origin anywhere between point B and (0,0) and the behavior does not change because that arbitrary axis does not exist.”
All Cartesian coordinates are arbitrary and do not exist.
What exists in reality is the rotational momentum of the massive blue bar about C. That momentum cannot be destroyed by ftop_t assertions or placement of accelerated frames. Observers in accelerated frame attached to blue bar will not observe the momentum but proper calculations back to inertial frame will prove the momentum exists & is not destroyed by the arbitrary frame of choice.
This is basic relativity & basic physics that ftop_t does not properly comprehend.
The momentum is about X, not C. And, the difference between the “Non Spinners” and the “Spinners” transcends reference frames, as previously explained, since the “moon on the left” and the “moon on the right” (which is how each group perceives “orbital motion without axial rotation”) are two completely different motions, regardless of from which reference frame they are observed.
@Ball4,
Nice try changing the words…
“You could place a translating cartesian coordinate system with its origin anywhere between point B and (0,0) and the behavior does not change because that arbitrary axis does not exist.”
“All Cartesian coordinates are arbitrary and do not exist.”
I clearly stated that Point C as an AXIS is arbitrary which is because of your incorrect choice to arbitrarily designate it as one.
The actual axis of rotation IS NOT arbitrary, it is at Point X from EVERY reference frame.
As I have demonstrated, drag the orange dot labeled “Fixed Axis” to different locations, observe the behavior, and then come back and FALSELY claim that the AXIS OF ROTATION is arbitrary.
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/wkjvrtvmil
Drag the orange dot to the origin and watch the triangle until you understand the motion of ROTATION about an EXTERNAL AXIS
You could actually learn something.
FTOP,
“A circle is just a form of an ellipse and there is no limitation on varying amplitude to determine curvature using rotational formulas.”
Pointless red herring.
Again you are ignoring the fundamental definitions shown to you from Rigid Body Kinematics. An elliptical Orbit is not a ROTATION because it does not involve circular movement of mass around a central axis.
Why do you insist on scrapping these universal definitions to suit your beliefs? That is not a convincing argument.
“I would post this question. Since the argument is that the moon is rotating on its axis and this is an independent motion from its orbital motion, what keeps the axial rotation synchronized with the growing size of the moon’s orbital path?
The moon is receding. This is a given. As the orbital period changes the axial rotation must adjust to match.
If there is a 1:1 resonance between the orbital period and the axial rotation what causes the axial rotation to slow down exactly the amount necessary to keep this resonance as the moon slowly recedes from the earth and the orbital period gets longer?
Does it just happen magically?”
No, of course not. There is a well known tidal-locking mechanism at work here, which produces small torques that require millions of years to produce the tidal-locking. You can easily read about in many places.
But this ENTIRELY misses the point.
KINEMATICS is simply how we DESCRIBE motion. It goes back to Galileo explaining projectile motion. It is what every physics or engineering student learns first.
It has nothing to do with the MECHANISM for that motion, which is called DYNAMICS and began with Newton’s Laws and forces, etc.
In RIGID BODY KINEMATICS we describe the TRANSLATIONAL motion of a BODY in elliptical orbit and any ROTATION of that BODY as SEPARATE motions.
This approach provides the most convenient and universal framework for astrophysics to then use DYNAMICS to solve for these motions.
“Thats the illusion were talking about. In reality the blue bar is rotating only about X.”
Sure.
The TEAM admit that a motion can equally well be described in TWO ways, but one of the ways is declared as ‘reality’ while the other is declared as ‘illusion’.
But they never define how ‘illusion’ differs from ‘reality’.
When an orbiting object is quite obviously NOT ROTATING like the Moon on the Right, that is just an ‘illusion’.
The ‘reality’ is that it is rotating BOTH CW and CCW and they cancel!
Weird choice of ‘illusion’ there.
Basically whenever a fact disagrees with their erroneous beliefs, they just DECLARE it an ‘illusion’, then make up their own ‘reality’.
It is a fabulous tool for deniers and obfuscators.
“You could actually learn something.”
Bet you anything you like he doesn’t learn a thing.
Be nice if FTOP could learn what a Rotation is in Kinematics.
Be nice if you could apply what you claim to have learned in Kinematics.
Mind you, the rest of them aren’t any better.
7:44am: “I clearly stated that Point C as an AXIS is arbitrary”
Sure, ftop_t is correct as stated Point C as an axis of the blue bar though the blue bar cg. The blue bar could also be rotating about an arbitrary axis through its end for which the blue bar moment of inertia is then different, both while blue bar has certain momentum also orbiting the central axis.
Thus, the blue bar has conserved momentum about the central orbital axis and a different conserved momentum about blue bar cg through axis C & neither momentum can be destroyed by arbitrary ref. frame choices.
ftop_t could learn something by doing the calculations for the two different axis momentums of the blue bar (hint for ftop_t: the 2 different blue bar rotational momentum calculations are trivial and easily found on the internet.)
Then, once ftop_t learns something about momentum, ftop_t could learn something more in practice by transforming from the accelerated frame attached to the blue bar to the basic inertial frame (hint: this is harder, not as trivial but still basic relativity and first course physics).
See? He hasn’t learned a thing. It basically boils down to: Ball4 believes that the blue bar is both rotating about X and about C, which we know cannot possibly be correct, but whatever we say Ball4 will just mumble something about "from the accelerated frame" and pretend we don’t understand relativity.
Note that he’s not arguing it’s translating in a circle around X and rotating about C…he is fully arguing that it is rotating about X and about C, and even though there are those on his own side of the argument that should disagree with him on that, they will never speak up.
The Moon on the Right is clearly NOT satisfying the definition of a pure rotation around a center, since all parts of it are NOT moving in circles around the central axis. Only the center is moving in a circle around the center. And the exact center is a point with no mass.
However Ball 4 is correct that it still has angular momentum. Orbital angular momentum, mvr.
Anything moving past a point can have angular momentum, even an asteroid just flying by and never orbiting. No rotation is necessary.
Whatever path an object is translating on thru space, IF IT ALSO has rotation wrt the stars, then its rotation MUST BE around its own CM, and it has SPIN angular momentum.
And an astronomer looking at it thru a telescope could determine is rate of rotation. And that would be its axial rotation around its own CM.
The astronomer doesnt need to determine if that object is ALSO orbiting at some rate around something else, perhaps an invisible black hole, and subtract off that orbital angular velocity from its measured rotational angular velocity.
That would get exceedingly complicated and ridiculous. Especially when all orbits around all things are considered.
But for our Moon, the TEAM DOES want us to subtract off the orbital angular velocity of the Moon around the Earth from its rotation rate, to find its ‘true’ axial rotation rate, which is then, on average, 0.
But why don’t we ALSO have to subtract the Moon’s orbital angular velocity around the SUN? Then it would no longer have 0 ‘true’ axial rotation, and the TEAM will be unhappy.
But of course, astronomers dont have to do all of that silly, arbitrary subtracting or orbital rates, because, as our wise resident astronomer, Tim, noted, rotation is rotation is rotation.
They have the weirdest ideas about what our argument actually is.
@Nate,
I fully accept that you can determine the location of a planetary body by combining a translation and a rotation of the body around a center of mass.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/#comment-626109
I also understand why astronomers use this methodology. The entire universe is in motion and by basing location information for a body on a set of parameters, you remove the complexity of multiple orbital and rotational movements.
My point all along has been that the motion is NOT DERIVED from the combination of an orbital motion and an axial rotation. There are not TWO rotational movements (orbital and axial).
Can you ignore the natural orientation change that occurs from an object traversing a curved path? Sure.
If you do so, you have to apply that orientation change somewhere in order to accurately model the position.
Thus, “because the combination of movements for orbits and planetary spin creates modeling complexities, astronomers have chosen to declare the orientation of a body based on an external fixed point (north star). Regardless of the cause of the change in orientation (orbital or axial), any deviation from the orientation toward that fixed external point is applied as a rotation about an internal axis for consistency.”
The two moon images referred to frequently show no axial rotation or a clockwise rotation offsetting the orbital motion.
Claiming the image that keeps its face pointed inward is rotating on its axis is an artifact based on the rules above, but that is only because of the choice to not include the natural orientational change that happens when an object traverses a curved path.
Yes, when you drill down into it, your argument is awfully weird.
But, if you think I have it wrong, please do tell us how YOU would DEFINE what the true ‘axial rotation rate’ of a celestial object is in reality?
Here’s how science defines and measures it:
If parts of an object have velocities that differ from its CM velocity by omega*r, then it must have rotation around the CM at angular velocity omega.
No need to worry about orbits at all.
FTOP, Thank you for understanding the complexity that is avoided by Astrophysics using the definitions that they do.
I still differ from you on one thing:
“Can you ignore the natural orientation change that occurs from an object traversing a curved path? Sure.”
I do not agree that there is any ‘natural orientation change’ that occurs when an object is traversing a curved path.
I don’t understand where you get this idea?
Recently there was an asteroid that came thru our solar system that was not orbiting our sun, Oumuamua.
It would have still been influenced by our sun’s gravity to follow a curved path as it passed thru.
But there is no physics reason to believe that as its path curved, that it ALSO must have turned its orientation.
Rather it should have kept whatever orientation or rotation rate that it had already before it passed thru.
“I also understand why astronomers use this methodology. The entire universe is in motion and by basing location information for a body on a set of parameters, you remove the complexity of multiple orbital and rotational movements.”
Yes, absolutely.
“My point all along has been that the motion is NOT DERIVED from the combination of an orbital motion and an axial rotation. There are not TWO rotational movements (orbital and axial).”
It’s amazing how hard it is to get that point across to some people.
“The two moon images referred to frequently show no axial rotation or a clockwise rotation offsetting the orbital motion.”
Yes, but you will find that even some of the “Spinners” who understand the basics still struggle with the “moon on the right”, proving that they do not fully understand our position.
ftop_t moans:
@SGW,
“Place a translating cartesian coordinate system with its origin at point C. The blue bar will be seen rotating about the origin (point C).”
Nope.
Do you even understand what a translating cartesian coordinate system is?? From your boneheaded comments, apparently not.
But this is to be expected from the genius who counted the rotations of the outer circle of an epicycloid wrt a rotating reference frame.
But back to the blue bar:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/wnxdr8vq03
Expanding on what Nate and Ball4 were saying about momentum. Let’s look at the kinetic energy of the system, the energy of motion. The blue bar will have translational kinetic energy associated with the center of mass revolving about the origin, and rotational kinetic energy about the bar’s center of mass, C. I have posted two sample problems from two different university lecture series which are similar in concept to this rotating rod:
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=80BA8BA13FEC03B0!2052&ithint=file%2cpptx&authkey=!AER-b8FVoR8gLQM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlFlZHfAZeE&feature=emb_logo
ftop_t and company would argue that there is one axis of rotation at the origin for the ball fixed to the rod, and the disk attached to the arm in the above two problems. And they would fail in their kinetic energy calculations by not capturing the rotational KE of the ball and disk about their centers of mass, and thus would also fail to count the rotational KE of the blue bar about C.
The sample pendulum problem was from a Purdue University mechanical engineering course in mechanics. You can go argue with them.
SGW continues to deny the existence of fixed axis rotation.
SGW links to a nice explanation of the parallel axis theorem.
And DREMPTs head explodes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_axis_theorem
Been discussed a dozen times. Nothing new.
“Yes, absolutely.”
Gee, when you add up all the facts and logic that DREMT agrees with, from the spinner POV, it is amazing that he still, somehow, ends up as an anti-spinner.
I guess facts and logic cant overcome religious belief.
https://teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla/articles/moons-rotation-follow-up
“Still more remote from palpable truth is the equation of motion obtained in the manner indicated in Fig. 4, in which the first term represents the kinetic energy of translation of the body as a whole and the second that of its axial rotation. The former would demand a movement of the mass in a definite path and direction, all particles having the same velocity, the latter its simultaneous motion in another path and direction, the particles having different velocities. This abstract idea of angular motion is chiefly responsible for the illusion of the moon’s axial rotation, which I shall endeavor to dispel by additional evidences.”
Tesla did go on to dispel the illusion of the moon not rotating on its own axis with his momentum analysis of the wheel and ball M assembly. So did ftop_t here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
DREMPT
“Been discussed a dozen times. Nothing new.”
No shit sherlock, it’s not new.
Been discussed for more than 300 years, you are kinda late to the party, and wrong as usual.
To calculate the total energy of a ball on a string you need to understand that it is rotating on two axes.
Or you get the wrong answer.
Yeah but you like that don’t you DREMT, getting the wrong answer.
Ball4, Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
bob, the calculation is based on assuming the center of mass of the object is translating, plus the object is rotating about that center of mass. So it is not that the object is meant to be rotating about two axes, like you said.
A translation plus a rotation, not two rotations.
Also, it is just a method of calculating the kinetic energy involved, it doesn’t mean that the object is actually rotating on its own axis in any true physical sense of the word.
Again, Tesla’s layman editor incorrectly wrote that the moon does not rotate on its own axis; Tesla himself showed with the physics of Tesla’s wheel and ball M assembly, correcting his editor, the moon does rotate on its own axis. This physics is unknown to DREMT.
ftop_t agrees with Tesla that our moon does rotate on its own axis and shows Tesla’s editor was incorrect here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
You really have no shame whatsoever, do you Ball4?
…and nobody else will call you on your bullshit.
Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis. Ftop_t argues that the moon does not rotate on its own axis. In fact in the Desmos link you keep linking to, there is an object moving like the moon and only the external axis rotation slider is moving in order to make that happen.
You will now waffle on about reference frames.
“which I shall endeavor to dispel by additional evidences.”
And then…..no such additional evidences ever come. Pls show us what those are.
Just more observations labelled as ‘illusions’. That is not evidence.
@SGW posts a demonstration of a pendulum.
One pendulum (on the left) has two axis of rotation at points O and C
One pendulum (on the right) has one axis of rotation at point O
We know this because the pendulum on the right has the axis at point C welded solid so it is no longer an axis of rotation.
Of course, the natural conclusion from this is:
The pendulum on the left that has freedom of movement at two points (O & C) only has one (1) axis of rotation
The pendulum on the right which has freedom of movement at only one point (O) has two axis of rotation.
If you don’t agree with this, prove it for yourself. Weld the wheels of your bike to the frame and ride over a hill. Now the frame is rotating over a point at the center of the hill and your wheels can rotate on their axis so you can enjoy your ride.
BTW, @SGW: THAT WAS SARCASM since you struggle to pick those things up…Actually, I better state that again – THE BIKE EXAMPLE WAS SARCASM.
Of course, what this demonstration shows it that angular momentum is a vector quantity and that the disc that can move freely has angular momentum in an opposing direction to the rotation at point O and the disc’s angular momentum is measured from point C; whereas the rigid disc has angular momentum consistent with the direction of the rotation at point O and is measured from the ONE AXIS of rotation at point O.
“…and nobody else will call you on your bullshit”.
Probably best to get everyone on record…
Taking the example SGW posted, is the following statement true
“A pendulum with a freely moving disc only has ONE AXIS of rotation at the top of the pendulum, whereas if the disc is welded solid where it connects to the pendulum arm, the pendulum now has two axis of rotations – one at the top of the pendulum and one at the welded solid point.”
I’ll go ahead and post my answer:
The statement is false.
“The former would demand a movement of the mass in a definite path and direction, all particles having the same velocity, the latter its simultaneous motion in another path and direction, the particles having different velocities. This abstract idea of angular motion is chiefly responsible for the illusion of the moons axial rotation”
When you guys describe the Moon on the right as simultaneously rotating CCW and CW thus cancelling all rotation, that is AT LEAST as ABSTRACT as the description Tesla describes above. Yet it is labelled ‘REALITY’.
The problem here is that ALL Mathematical descriptions of motion are ABSTRACT. None of them are actually ‘REALITY’.
Non-spinners including Tesla here, labelling certain descriptions as ‘reality’ and others ‘illusion’ is simply based on biased beliefs.
The main point for astrophysics is to use descriptions of planetary motion that separate TRANSLATION from ROTATION, as Tesla describes above, because this is universally applicable and the most useful.
#2
“…and nobody else will call you on your bullshit”.
Melville would be proud of this sentence, it’s a good example of his kind of writing, pure fiction.
“Of course, what this demonstration shows it that angular momentum is a vector quantity and that the disc that can move freely has angular momentum in an opposing direction to the rotation at point O and the disc’s angular momentum is measured from point C; whereas the rigid disc has angular momentum consistent with the direction of the rotation at point O and is measured from the ONE AXIS of rotation at point O.”
Maybe you could figure out the direction of angular momentum as a vector quantity?
Hmmmm
bob lost the argument when he claimed that the “moon on the right” is both “translating in a circle”and “rotating about an external axis without rotating on its own internal axis”, but for some reason he is still butting in to the discussion.
ftop_t 7:46am: “We know this because the pendulum on the right has the axis at point C welded solid so it is no longer an axis of rotation.”
Only to an observer in the accelerated frame attached to the pendulum.
Inertially, the angular momentum of the round object on the pendulum end cannot be destroyed by ftop_t thought of welding, prose, or choice of ref. frames. Tesla proved that with analysis of Tesla’s wheel and ball M assembly so Tesla demonstrated with physics that our moon rotates on its own axis once per orbit of Earth as shown here by ftop_t demo.:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
DREMT claims he won an argument, in an argument where he changed the definitions of rotation, translation, and just about everything else.
Nope, it don’t work that way.
So what, that I butted in and questioned whether or not Ftop knows the direction of the vector for angular momentum of a rotating body.
Seems to me, he got it wrong.
bob, I did not change the definitions of rotation and translation. Stop lying.
Yeah DREMPT,
you did
remember orbital motion without axial rotation?
If that’s not an example of redefining terms I don’t know what is.
You defined no rotation as the case with the Moon keeping one face always to the center of the orbit.
No you stop lying.
I did not change the definitions of rotation and translation, bob. The “moon on the left” is rotating about an external axis without rotating about its own internal axis. According to the definitions of rotation that have been linked to and explained.
Poor ftop_t always gets things backwards and wrong. He tried to count rotations from a rotating reference frame, and now gets confused because his education in geometry only takes him so far.
For the pendulum problem on the right where the disk is welded to the arm, that disk rotates about its own axis, as the description states:
For this case, OC rotates about O and the disk both rotates and translates. For this problem, the initial kinetic energy of the system goes into rotational KE for the bar and translational KE for the disk, in addition to rotational KE for the disk.
Counterintuitive to the uneducated. The disk on the left is translating. The Purdue mechanical engineering department is absolutely correct in their analysis of the problem. You are simply confused because you obviously have never studied kinematics or kinetics, or you would not be making such ignorant comments. Here is a link to the Purdue University Mechanical Engineering 274 class. Several professors are listed. Feel free to contact them to explain their errors:
https://www.purdue.edu/freeform/me274/
Same thing with the second link I provided with a whirling ball firmly attached to a slender rod. The ball has both translational kinetic energy as well as rotational kinetic energy for the ball rotating about its own axis. The lecture is for a physics 183 class at Michigan State University. Here is a description of the class:
https://reg.msu.edu/Courses/Request.aspx?SubjectCode=PHY&CourseNumber=183&Source=SB&Term=1174#Results
Feel free to contact MSU and explain the errors you found in that sample problem. I am sure they would be most grateful for your input.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/#comment-627312
“I did not change the definitions of rotation and translation, bob.”
Uhhhh, you didnt claim an elliptical orbit was a ROTATION? You certainly did!
And the Rigid Body Kinematics text, among many other sources, settled that!
You were WRONG.
Youve tried to change the definition of ORBIT dozens of times, to try to claim it is EQUIVALENT to whatever the Moon is doing.
You were WRONG.
Now you simply lie about it.
You are a lying loser troll. That settles it.
Once again, I did not change the definitions of rotation and translation, bob. The “moon on the left” is rotating about an external axis without rotating about its own internal axis. According to the definitions of rotation that have been linked to and explained.
According to Merriam-Webster definition of rotation the moon on the left has internal axis rotation because it is in the process of “one complete turn, the angular displacement required to return a rotating body to its original position” whilst according to DREMT definition of rotation the moon on the left has no rotation on its internal axis.
DREMT does change the definition of rotation from Merriam-Webster so Nate is correct and DREMT wrong.
No, Ball4, the “moon on the left” is making “one complete turn, the angular displacement required to return a rotating body to its original position” about an external axis.
ftop_t drools:
Probably best to get everyone on record…
We already have it on record that your a freakin’ idiot when it comes to kinematics and kinetics, and that you’ve never graced a university classroom that taught such topics. You would flunk such classes anyway since you were shown two simple problems and you are claiming these prestigious universities somehow did not solve the problems correctly. (eye roll)
You do not understand reference frames.
You can’t even count simple rotations because you stupidly use a rotating reference frame.
You don’t understand translation or rotation.
Your feeble brain can’t comprehend that a whirling ball on a string or rod does rotate on its own axis, and does have both translational kinetic energy and rotational kinetic energy.
All you are doing is making a complete and utter fool of yourself for all to see.
Try a knitting or basket weaving class. Something your subpar intellect can handle.
That’s actually correct DREMT, the M-W rotation about that independent external axis is also occurring with its attendant independent external axis momentum. You could learn by computing the two independent & different momentums of our moon, one about internal axis and one about external axis. (Hint: Tesla already did the internal axis momentum calculation work for you with his wheel and ball M calculations.)
ftop_t illustrates the two independent internal and external axes lunar momentums here for you:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
Ball4, the “moon on the left” is not rotating about both an external and an internal axis. Tesla, ftop_t and even some of those on your own side of the argument would agree with me about that.
Tesla used the M-W defn. of rotation and physics of angular momentum to show the moon on left is rotating about its own internal axis once per orbit of the external axis just like a ball-on-string.
It’s ok to use DREMT’s own different language for physics as there are countless languages in existence; it’s just each reader should know DREMT is using a different language than M-W to discuss the moon on the left as it is certainly not M-W language. bob, Nate, SGW, et. al., and ftop_t demonstrations are helping make unaware readers become aware of the different DREMT language (DREMTnese) for describing the orbital motion of the nonzero radius object in DREMTnese here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
Ball4, the “moon on the left” and the “non-zero radius object” are not rotating about both an external and an internal axis. Tesla, ftop_t and even some of those on your own side of the argument would agree with me about that
Posted this in another area of the comments,
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/#comment-631264
Correcting the 1st paragraph…
I found this demonstration of the pendulum motion interesting and have been looking to equate the variance in the angular velocity (speed) of the two pendulum swings.
L = mvr
I was disturbed by the definition of the movement, “OC rotates about O and the disk translates without rotation” for the pendulum that is not pinned to the moving arm.
The reason this is challenging is that the disk is moving in a circular path — which fails the definition of a translation.
“In a translation transformation all the points in the object are moved in a straight line in the same direction.”
The location of the disk requires the use of a rotational matrix to find its location.
In both cases, the disk is not moving up or down, or right or left but traversing a circular path.
So what explains the movement?
Well, the welded pin is straightforward. All parts of the pendulum rotate around Point O and the angular velocity is strictly determined by the radius of any given point. the far end of the pendulum must travel a distance of:
For an entire circle, it would be = pi x diameter; 1/2 a circle would be pi x radius. So the far point travels
pi x (Length of the arm + radius of the disk)
This depiction shows the welded disk. The black dotted circle shows the circular path of the arm and the purple dotted line shows the distance a far point must travel
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/jigvu2wsof
Thus, 1/2 of the disk travels a distance greater than the length of the arm of the pendulum as depicted by the space between the black and purple dotted line
What is interesting is the pendulum on the left where the disk is free to spin.
The disk is still traveling in a circular motion, but any given point on the disk only travels the distance of the arc created by the length of the arm.
pi x (Length of the arm)
This depiction shows the free spinning disk. Again, the black dotted circle shows the circular path of the arm and the red dotted circle shows the distance the point travels is the same as the distance the arm travels
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/eb0uweg4ee
Because angular momentum is predicated on the distance a point is from the center of rotation and angular momentum must be conserved, we have a variance in the speed of the two pendulums.
The pendulum on the left is rotating around a shorter distance and will move faster. The pendulum on the right is traveling a greater circular path and will have to move slower.
It is exactly the same as a skater that pulls his/her arms closer to the body.
https://openstax.org/books/university-physics-volume-1/pages/11-3-conservation-of-angular-momentum
The pendulum on the left is rotating clockwise to Point O, which is why the angle (alpha) goes from 180 to 0 while the angle of the arm goes from 0 to 180.
This opposing rotation of the free spinning disk reduces the distance any point on the disk must travel, increasing the speed of the swing to maintain conservation of angular momentum.
@SGW,
Thanks for going on record:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/#comment-628341
So @SGW believes
1) If you weld a wheel to a frame, the wheel is spinning about the welded joint
2) If you connect a wheel with a pin that allows it to spin freely; it is locked in its position and no longer can rotate on its axis
He believes this because, it is “Counterintuitive to the uneducated.”
@SGW should probably weld his bicycle frame to the forks of the bike and go win the Tour de France.
In this comment, I included a video that mirrors the pendulum with a disk that can move freely.
I’m sure @Ball4 will say the string doesn’t exist in the “accelerated reference frame” or something equally inane.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/#comment-631271
Another great way to visualize the opposing rotation of the free rotating disk against the rotation of the arm which increases the angular velocity of the arm is to equate it to the way a person pumps a swing to increase its speed.
The horizontal bar can be viewed as the legs of a person on a swing. The legs start out extended and as the pendulum swings to the left, the horizontal line gets closer to the bar (like pulling your legs in) and extends as it swings back.
This creates greater angular velocity because the radius is smaller and angular momentum is conserved.
This video shows the movement exactly at 3:57
https://youtu.be/MbWhKFIayp4
Note, the wheel is rotating on its axis and this is increasing the angular momentum of the bar.
Thus, in the Purdue depiction, the pendulum on the left is rotating about two axis whereas the one on the right is rotating about one external axis.
Gordon shrieks:
The Moon is translating in an orbit and that explains everything.
Wrong! Gordon STILL does not comprehend the concept of translation. Every reference source you will find categorically states translating objects NEVER change their orientation. EVER. What Gordon’s statement “explains” is he has no clue regarding the principles of kinematics. As Tesla himself stated, every point on a translating body has the same velocity. That is not the case with the moon.
skeptic…”Gordon shrieks:
The Moon is translating in an orbit and that explains everything.
Wrong! Gordon STILL does not comprehend the concept of translation”.
***
I understand it very well and I have offered concrete examples. A jetliner flying at 35,000 feet around the planet is doing exactly the same motion as one that could taxi around the planet on a runway. If you could construct a runway around the equator and have a jetliner taxi around the Earth, on the ground, you must at least call that rectilinear translation.
So why is it any different if it takes off and flies around the Equator at 35,000 feet?
The reason I claim the Moon is translating is based on the same reasoning. The Moon’s motion without Earth’s gravity is rectilinear translation. When gravity act on it, the Moon’s trajectory is changed to curvilinear translation.
You are so stupefied with text books as your source that you’ll never understand deeper physics. And the fact that your replies are based on ad homs and insults proves conclusively you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Gordon,
Textbooks, physics lecture notes from prestigious universities, on-line videos etc. EVERY reference source you can find says you are wrong. Period.
You DON’T understand translation at all. Your examples prove this. A translating object NEVER changes orientation. Your jetliner does, the moon does.
AGW theory has probably set climate science back decades.
It has taken away from the real drivers of climate which I mention and focused everything on a trace gas with a trace increase.
Salvatore, climate science studies on all (at least) 9 drivers of global median temperature and myriad weather cycles. You need to study the field more competently.
Six of those nine must not be very important because a 96+% match for 125 years is achieved with just three. https://drive.google.com/file/d/14PxMjIbvcLoe-iY9lVefM-CVTsj6_quZ/view?usp=sharing
That’s roughly true depending on the def. of “not very important” in metric terms. Some of the 9 have reverse effect from increasing CO2 in the troposphere too just like the myriad of weather cycles.
The slight warming effect at ground level caused by increased CO2 is approximately cancelled by the cooling effect in the stratosphere caused by increased CO2. The resulting net effect of added CO2 is approximately zero. Apparently some people call that two drivers. IMO it is justification to ignore CO2 change as a driver. The assessment that CO2 change has no significant net effect on climate is corroborated by multiple observations some of which are listed in Section 2 of (click my name).
The other 4 drivers have to fit into the unexplained 4% or occupy part of the space accounted for by the factors explicitly considered.
The assessment that CO2 change has no net effect on climate at all is correct for the total atm. since CO2 does not burn a fuel on its own. Only the sun is burning a fuel warming us.
The CO2 global warming at the surface due increasing lower atm. sunlight & LW opacity is the issue for AGW where we live. As the atm optical opacity increases more LW gets absorbed in the troposphere warming it so doesn’t make it up to get absorbed in the stratosphere and above tending to upper atm. regions equally cooling. Think of it as the stratosphere increasingly in the LW earth shine shade of the troposphere.
“The other 4 drivers have to fit into the unexplained 4%..”
Your 4% is not unexplained or unattributed within meaningful 95% confidence band. The added CO2 and other GHG main drivers do more than make up for the substantial cooling from aerosols and net land use 1750 to 2011. Solar irradiance has a negligible change in the face of all other drivers; land use cooling change alone swamps all of the tiny solar irradiance increase.
All this adds a current decadal global energy imbalance measured around net of outgoing LW positive 0.87 W/m^2 coming in to the system globally TOA so there is more lower atm. warming and upper atm regions cooling in the pipeline to reach equilibrium even in the face of variable ENSO now on the cool cycle.
CO2 is not one of the three.
The start of cooling , good videos there
https://www.accuweather.com/en/winter-weather/power-outages-approached-1-million-as-storms-swamp-us/899860
Eben
We rather use to disagree on about everything. That’s life.
I had a look on your Accu link, it looks hard indeed.
But please remind above all that end of January 2019, Northern CONUS faced a far worse situation:
– (1) -30 C in Chicago, IL
– (2) -40 C at Mount Carroll, IL
– (3) -50 C in Cot*ton, MN
and lots of super cold places I don’t recall today.
Now I had a look at stations a bit outside of Oklahoma City (you know, because of the crazy UHI) and found
USW00013967 35.3889 -97.6006 391.7 OK OKLAHOMA CITY
I downloaded the most recent data, and an as.cending sort of the TMIN scan gave this:
USW00013967 50-32 2011 2 10 -20.6 (C)
USW00013967 50-32 1979 2 9 -19.4
USW00013967 50-32 1996 2 4 -19.4
USW00013967 50-32 1951 2 1 -18.3
USW00013967 50-32 1978 2 18 -18.3
USW00013967 50-32 1981 2 11 -17.8
USW00013967 50-32 1989 2 3 -17.8
USW00013967 50-32 1996 2 3 -17.8
USW00013967 50-32 1989 2 4 -16.7
USW00013967 50-32 1951 2 2 -16.1
You have to bypass 30 lines before seeing 2021:
USW00013967 50-32 2021 2 13 -13.3
So yes, this year it’s quite cold there indeed.
But unusually cold? Really?
We should not trust too much in daily data.
When we look at monthly data instead, we can see that while there was, at the Oklahoma airport station, a positive trend for 1979-now (0.17 C / decade), the trend for 2010-now is… -0.82 C / decade!
And the trend keeps at -0.38 C / decade when we start in 2013 to bypass the extreme 2012 peak.
Wait and see…
J.-P. D.
Oh apos!
I think we agree on… Moon’s spin about its center of mass!
At least one point, better than zero.
Jennifer Francis was right.
Anyone watching this current “ice age” in central US?
Now some idiots are claiming it’s caused by AGW! It’s just another example of their incompetence–“Ice flux adds, melting the polar caps, and that causes the polar vortex, which kills the polar bears and causes Moon to start rotating about its axis, which causes more global warming!”
Or some such nonsense….
How about them fossil fuel and nuclear power plants down in Texas?
Song lyrics come to mind
Leavin Texas, fourth day of July
a little early
and lucky me, all my flights got canceled so no need to
Call up Trudy on the telephone
Now that a lot of people are hunkered down in snow storms you can watch when Lufo created the moon he clearly put a spin on it before he pushes it into earth orbit
If your green power grid didn’t fail you that is
https://youtu.be/1x3RRrqJWKA
The weather in Texas right now was common during the Little Ice Age. Same with Florida. Let’s hope this is produced by La Nina and it’s not the start of another LIA.
Alarmists can argue all they want that the LIA had a limited scope. However, there is well documented evidence from people who lived in the area of Florida and Texas during the LIA and it got damned cold in winter. Crops failed and many people, including native Indian tribes starved.
A possible cause is the weakening of the jet stream, caused by AGW.
bobd…”A possible cause is the weakening of the jet stream, caused by AGW”.
Crock of camel doo-doo.
Gordon provides his best scientific debunking of a scientist’s work.
“Crock of camel doo-doo”
Which is also a representation of Gordon’s scientific expertise.
bobd…”Which is also a representation of Gordon’s scientific expertise”.
If that’s the case, Bob, all things being equal, your scientific expertise would be represented by a barge-load of camel doo-doo.
Gordon,
Oh yeah, well your mother wears combat boots.
What’s your engineer license number?
bobd…”Oh yeah, well your mother wears combat boots”.
Shows how much you know, my Mammy wears logging boots….and smokes a pipe, like Mammy Yokum.
http://lil-abner.com/character-profile-mammy-yokum/
And, yes…my Mammy has a good punch too. She told me I don’t have to give you my engineer’s license number if I don’t want to. Don’t be getting her riled up, now.
Gordon,
So you are not a licensed engineer.
So do you have an engineering degree?
A college degree of any kind?
A graduate of a vocational school such as Ranken?
bobd…I told you, I sent away for my degree based on a coupon I found in a box of Kellogg’s Corn Flakes. I learned my math and physics from reading Wiki articles. Since I know a lot more about math and physics than you do, that does not speak highly of your training.
Gordon,
You still don’t understand the second law of thermodynamics, so no, you don’t know more physics than I do.
As for Math, ha, you funny.
One undisputable fact is that you didn’t score higher than me on the math portion of the ACT, in fact not one person in the world has.
Many have tied, but not one beat me.
Just bragging you know.
bobd…”You still don’t understand the second law of thermodynamics”
That means the scientist who created the 2nd law, Rudolf Clausius, does not understand it because I got my information from him.
Again, the words of Clausius, heat can NEVER be transferred, by its own means, from a colder body to a warmer body. For entropy, which he created as well, entropy is the sum of infinitesimal heat transfers at temperature, T, over a cycle. If the cycle is reversible, entropy is zero. If it is irreversible, entropy is positive.
There are a lot of scientists today who have incorrectly amended those simple words. Of course, they ( modern scintists) are full of bs.
Gordon,
You still don’t understand what the words “by its own means” mean.
“entropy is zero”
That’s wrong too.
bobd…”entropy is zero
Thats wrong too.”
You claim to be a math whiz yet you cannot calculate that the sum of heat transfers over a reversible process must be zero. Clausius stated it is zero and any mathematician who understand the nature of integrals knows it’s zero.
With regard to ‘by it’s own means’, Clausius explained what he meant very clearly. He referred to the meaning as being ‘without compensation’. In other words, unless you compensate heat transfer with external energy, heat can never be transferred cold to hot.
Unfortunately, people like Norman, who regards himself as a textbook whiz, cherry picked the explanation of Clausius, focusing on his comment that heat can flow cold to hot if compensated. Norman omitted the compensation reference in the explanation.
Gordon,
Today I will be nice and tell you where you fucked it up.
“If the cycle is reversible, entropy is zero.”
Should be “If the cycle is reversible the change in entropy is zero!
Now do you see where you fucked up?
Apparently in the era of the LIA, climate was determined by latitude. Explorers coming from similar latitude, like the Caribbean latitudes, were surprised to find those areas to be a lot colder than what had been expected.
Biden sez just shut it off
https://youtu.be/oQnw2opVWVk
Utter failure of forecasting
https://bit.ly/3dsuQi3
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/02/20/claim-42000-years-ago-the-earths-magnetic-field-collapsed-and-the-world-cooled/?fbclid=IwAR2YxN8rM6VXY1qRYYsMJk1-4Bg8MwGozqu4Y2ETQvgpO_7u_ULInbzlBGk
Finally some geo magnetic thoughts on how it may impact the climate.
clint r ….”Now some idiots are claiming its caused by AGW! Its just another example of their incompetenceIce flux adds, melting the polar caps, and that causes the polar vortex, which kills the polar bears and causes Moon to start rotating about its axis, which causes more global warming!
Here’s another good one. The variants claimed for covid are based on unvalidated computer models. That’s right. Other idiots have used their mouse to create them on a computer model.
There are three papers covering this pseudo-science, none of them peer-reviewed. The co-author of two papers, Neil Ferguson, a mathematician/modeler, has a dismal record based on his predictions.
“In 2002, Ferguson predicted that up to 50,000 people would die from variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, better known as “mad cow disease”, increasing to 150,000 if the epidemic expanded to include sheep. The reality is: “Since 1990, 178 people in the United Kingdom have died from vCJD, according to the National CJD Research & Surveillance Unit at the University of Edinburgh.” (2017)
In 2005, Ferguson claimed that up to 200 million people would be killed by bird-flu or H5N1. By early 2006, the WHO had only linked 78 deaths to the virus, out of 147 reported cases.
In 2009, Ferguson and his team at Imperial College advised the government that swine flu or H1N1 would probably kill 65,000 people in the UK. In the end, swine flu claimed the lives of 457 people in the UK.
Now, in 2020, Ferguson and Imperial College have released a report which claims that half a million Britons and 2.2 million Americans may be killed by Covid19. The report has still not been peer-reviewed; despite this and Ferguson’s glaring record of mathematical sensationalism, the British Government has adopted the devastating socio-economic lockdown that Ferguson has proposed”
This is the idiot who is driving world governments into hysterical reactions, forcing lockdowns. All of the predictions are based on models which are themselves based on his model.
“This is the idiot who is driving world governments into hysterical reactions, forcing lockdowns.”
Causality is not your strong suit, Gordon. Ie Cause must come Before the Effect.
skeptic…”You DON’T understand translation at all. Your examples prove this. A translating object NEVER changes orientation. Your jetliner does, the moon does”.
****
Your myopic view of translation is limited to a straight line on a 2-D piece of paper. like in a textbook example. They also teach in a textbook that the interior angles of a triangle sum to 180 degrees. That’s true only on a 2-D surface.
On a 3-D curved surface, it’s not true that the interior angles of a triangle drawn on the surface sum to 180 degrees.
I am sure you’d agree, unless you are stupidly obtuse, that motion along a straight surface in one direction is rectilinear translation. As long as all points on the moving body move parallel to the surface. Suppose you extend that straight surface around the Earth, say at the Equator. I know it’s not possible since there are oceans in the way but we are pretending. You could make it happen on the Moon or on Mars.
Suppose now I have a jetliner taxiing along that path. It obviously cannot translate along a tangential plane for long, it must follow the curvature of the Earth. Are you going to argue that every point on the plane is not moving parallel to the surface? It has to, therefore, if the plane taxis right around the Equator, it is performing rectilinear translation on a curved surface. Furthermore, it changes its orientation by 360 wrt the stars as it completes on revolution around the planet.
BTW, I call that curvilinear translation for obvious reasons but your limited mind has difficulty extending textbook definition to the real, physical world.
If the plane now accelerates and takes off, leveling off at 35,000 feet, it is following exactly the same path as on the ground but 35,000 feet, on average, higher. All points on the plane are still moving parallel to the surface, on average.
It is still translating as per definition. So is the Moon.
My comments in bold. Gordon’s comments unbolded:
Your myopic view of translation is limited to a straight line on a 2-D piece of paper. [No. Translating objects can follow a curve, for example, the chair of a ferris wheel, which does not change its orientation as it follows a curve. Also it is NOT my view, but the view of every reference source you can find] like in a textbook example. They also teach in a textbook that the interior angles of a triangle sum to 180 degrees. Thats true only on a 2-D surface.
On a 3-D curved surface, its not true that the interior angles of a triangle drawn on the surface sum to 180 degrees.
I am sure youd agree, unless you are stupidly obtuse, that motion along a straight surface in one direction is rectilinear translation. As long as all points on the moving body move parallel to the surface. Suppose you extend that straight surface around the Earth, say at the Equator. I know its not possible since there are oceans in the way but we are pretending. You could make it happen on the Moon or on Mars.
Suppose now I have a jetliner taxiing along that path. It obviously cannot translate along a tangential plane for long, it must follow the curvature of the Earth. Are you going to argue that every point on the plane is not moving parallel to the surface? [No. But moving parallel to a curved surface does not meet the definition of translation. No line in a translating body rotates or changes direction. Your plane is changing its orientation, therefore not translating] It has to, therefore, if the plane taxis right around the Equator, it is performing rectilinear translation on a curved surface. [No. It’s performing curvilinear motion. The only point that is translating on the plane is its center of mass. Additionally, every point on a translating body has the same velocity.] Furthermore, it changes its orientation by 360 wrt the stars as it completes on revolution around the planet.
BTW, I call that curvilinear translation for obvious reasons but your limited mind has difficulty extending textbook definition to the real, physical world. [You may call that curvilinear translation, but no reference source in the world calls that curvilinear translation.]
If the plane now accelerates and takes off, leveling off at 35,000 feet, it is following exactly the same path as on the ground but 35,000 feet, on average, higher. All points on the plane are still moving parallel to the surface, on average. [So what? Moving parallel to the surface means it’s NOT translating. An object that is translating must REMAIN parallel to its original position.]
It is still translating as per definition. [No. Because you have the WRONG definition of translation] So is the Moon.[No. The moon changes its orientation. Translating objects do not. A line through the moon’s body changes its directions. A line through a translating object does not change direction. The far side of the moon has a greater velocity than the near side. All points on translating objects have the same velocity]
skeptic…” But moving parallel to a curved surface does not meet the definition of translation. No line in a translating body rotates or changes direction. Your plane is changing its orientation, therefore not translating]”
As I have pointed out in the past, you are reading beginner-level textbooks and taking them far too literally.
Once again, a definition of translation that covers only your myopic view is useless. Translation must cover all movement of objects from A to B given prescribed parameters. The jetliner I described, that can taxi around the Equator, must be performing both rectilinear and curvilinear translation…rectilinear along a tangential plane and curvilinear around the entire Equator.
As I have also tried to explain to you, parallel takes on a different meaning when applied to a curve rather than a horizontal surface. Parallel wrt a horizontal surface is easy, all points are moving in straight lines parallel to the horizontal surface.
When motion is along a curved surface, parallel must be redefined based on the radius of the curve and lines tangential to that curve, which are instantaneous. When you take that into account motion along a curve is no different than motion along a horizontal surface, just the measuring indicators are different.
Beginner’s textbooks try to dumb down definitions so as not to tax the mind’s of the reader. I am convinced that authors of such textbooks cannot possibly clearly understand each topic, so they go to other sources and take concepts from them. That’s why they present such limited definitions of translation, they don’t really understand what it means.
If you do enough problems with translating bodies, it becomes obvious there is little difference between rectilinear translation and curvilinear translation. The reason is simple. All kinematics is based on a mass changing position due to an applied force. When authors forget that, they come up with idiotic definitions that are far too general.
The Moon is a rigid body that possesses its own momentum. It is performing rectilinear translation at all times. As it performs that motion, it is acted on by Earth’s gravitational field, which nudges it into an orbital path. At no time does the Moon lose it’s linear momentum, if it did, it would either spiral down onto the Earth or escape its orbit.
Same with a jetliner, either taxiing around the Equator or flying around it. In the first case, gravity keeps it on the ground and in the second case, gravity nudges its linear momentum into an orbital path. In either case, the jetliner is translating.
skeptic…”The moon changes its orientation. Translating objects do not”.
You are confusing translating axes with the translation of a body/mass. If you take a 2-D x-y plane with origin at 0,0, and you translate the origin 45 degrees to 5,5, the translation is described as +5 units along the x-axis then 5 units vertically along the y-axis.
Of course, the origin does not go along the x-axis and up the y-axis, it moves on an angle to 5,5. Still, based on your myopic definition, in order to meet your myopic requirements, the body must first move parallel to the x-axis then parallel to the y-axis. If it moves along a 45 degree diagonal to 5,5 it is still translating.
What happens if the axis rotates as its origin moves? How are you going to explain that with your generalized definition. Sorry, translation is far more dynamic and complex than your overly-simplified beginner’s textbook definition.
Gordon,
It is really unbelievable that you are continuing with this farce. I have not met anyone so ignorant of kinematics.
The following lecture notes are from a Brown University mechanical engineering course in Dynamics and Vibrations. This is not some beginner course:
Translation, rectilinear and curvilinear: Motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position. The motion of the body is completely specified by the motion of any point in the body. All points of the body have the same velocity and same acceleration.
https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En4/notes_old/RigidKinematics/rigkin.htm
Can your pea sized intellect comprehend the above? For translation, every line in a rigid body must “Remain parallel to its original position“.. Secondly, all points on a translating body have the same velocity. The far side of the moon covers a longer distance than the near side in the same amount of time, therefore they have different velocities, therefore not translating. Same thing with your stupid airplane. The top side has a higher velocity than the bottom, therefore not translating.
I have given you multiple reference sources over the last 2 years, and they all say the same thing concerning translation. And none conform to you dim-witted viewpoint.
skeptic…”Translation, rectilinear and curvilinear: Motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position. The motion of the body is completely specified by the motion of any point in the body. All points of the body have the same velocity and same acceleration”.
You are misinterpreting the meaning of this statement. The author should have omitted ‘parallel to its original position’ since that is misleading and meaningless for a body moving along a curve. It is not possible for a body performing curvilinear translation to have every point in the body move parallel to it’s original position.
If you have a spoked wheel with a rim on it and you mark the rim at 6 o’clock, it is not possible for the points in the wheel at that position to move parallel to the horizontal at all times. But that’s what you are thinking. The moment the wheel moves a degree, the points are not moving parallel to a horizontal line at 6 o’clock. However, they are moving parallel to a tangential line at any instant on the curved wheel. That fulfills the requirement of parallelism in the curvilinear translation definition.
I don’t give a hoot what any myopic author thinks. Rectilinear and curvilinear translation must have broader meanings than what they are presenting. If the only example they have for curvilinear translation is a bus, with its wheels replaced with bearing attached to two rods moving through 180 degrees, with their other ends attached to the ground, they are about as stupid as people can be. Almost as stupid as you.
You are too stupid to understand what I have explained to you about the Moon. It is performing rectilinear translation, and as proof of that, if you could cut gravity right off, the Moon would fly off in a straight line under its own steam. The only reason it translates in an orbit is the bending effect of gravity on its rectilinear motion. Hence the Moon’s motion becomes curvilinear in nature, therefore curvilinear translation.
I am tired of your abject stupidity and arrogance. You lack the ability to engage in a scientific discussion. Go talk to someone more on your inferior level of thinking ability.
Gordon moans:
It is not possible for a body performing curvilinear translation to have every point in the body move parallel to it’s original position.
LMAO. You can’t even form a correct argument. The requirement for curvilinear translation is that a line through the body (not a point)remains parallel to its original position. Your reading comprehension really sucks. You cannot even properly comprehend the definition of translation!
Gordon further shrieks:
If you have a spoked wheel with a rim on it and you mark the rim at 6 o’clock, it is not possible for the points in the wheel at that position to move parallel to the horizontal at all times. But that’s what you are thinking.
Yes to the first sentence. No, to the second. The seat of a ferris wheel is a great example. Draw a horizontal line through the surface of the seat. That line remains horizontal all throughout the circular motion of the ferris wheel. Here is another example:
https://image.slideserve.com/392600/slide2-l.jpg
Brown university knows what they are talking about. They are not about to publish wrong and stupid definitions in their lecture notes for an advanced engineering class. Their definition of translation agrees with every other university lecture notes that you will find. Their definition of translation is the same that I learned in my engineering course in dynamics. You claim to have an engineering degree? If you took a course in kinematics/mechanics/dynamics, you would have been taught the same definition as Brown University. You just were not paying attention, or you were drunk or stoned on the day they covered the topic.
Gordon debunks himself yet again: “…the Moon. It is performing rectilinear translation…the Moon’s motion becomes curvilinear in nature, therefore curvilinear translation.”
As we wait for the February update here is a reminder of how the zero line shifted due to the transition to the 1991-2020 baseline.
Jan: +0.1422
Feb: +0.1608
Mar: +0.1278
Apr: +0.1219
May: +0.1240
Jun: +0.1328
Jul: +0.1302
Aug: +0.1258
Sep: +0.1666
Oct: +0.1608
Nov: +0.1340
Dec: +0.1195
For example, the zero line moved up about 0.16 for the month of February.
The average shift across all month is +0.137.
“The average shift across all month is +0.137.”
Good isn’t it.
Nick Stokes up[dates suggest a drop of over 0.100C this month.
How will this reflect in Dr Spencer’s report?
I would imagine that if the troposphere was to drop even slightly more we might approach the negative reading territory.
Wishful thinking I know.
My point was that negative territory is 0.16C higher than it was in previous updates. Predictions that this La Nina would send us into negative territory made before this change need to be interpreted as -0.16C (for Feb anyway) now.
Heh,heh,heh,heh.
Loving it.
When people think it is a good idea to change the base timelines ( not Roy) thinking temps wil always go up they put themselves in hock to a temperature fall.
How much colder will February be?
Feb is +0.20C
What’s up colleagues, how is everything,
and what you wish for to say concerning this piece of writing, in my view its truly
awesome designed for me.
I appreciate how this article was compose with full of unique words. I gained more knowledge after reading this. Big thanks for sharing this informative article.
https://electriciancasula.com.au/emergency-electrician-glenfield/
Mega Game 5 ขนมไทยเสริมดวง สล็อตเป็นเกมที่ยอดฮิตเวลานี้สามารถหาเงินจากการเล่นได้มากมาย ใช้อีกทั้งความสามารถและก็วิธีต่างๆสำหรับการเล่นรวมทั้งหัวใจสำคัญของเกมสล็อต megaslotgameที่ใช้สำหรับเพื่อการเล่น