Home/BlogThe Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for February, 2021 was +0.20 deg. C, up from the January, 2021 value of +0.12 deg. C.
REMINDER: We have changed the 30-year averaging period from which we compute anomalies to 1991-2020, from the old period 1981-2010. This change does not affect the temperature trends.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 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 14 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2020 01 0.42 0.44 0.41 0.52 0.57 -0.22 0.41
2020 02 0.59 0.74 0.45 0.63 0.17 -0.27 0.20
2020 03 0.35 0.42 0.28 0.53 0.81 -0.96 -0.04
2020 04 0.26 0.26 0.25 0.35 -0.70 0.63 0.78
2020 05 0.42 0.43 0.41 0.53 0.07 0.83 -0.20
2020 06 0.30 0.29 0.30 0.31 0.26 0.54 0.97
2020 07 0.31 0.31 0.31 0.28 0.44 0.26 0.26
2020 08 0.30 0.34 0.26 0.45 0.35 0.30 0.25
2020 09 0.40 0.41 0.39 0.29 0.69 0.24 0.64
2020 10 0.38 0.53 0.22 0.24 0.86 0.95 -0.01
2020 11 0.40 0.52 0.27 0.17 1.45 1.09 1.28
2020 12 0.15 0.08 0.22 -0.07 0.29 0.43 0.13
2021 01 0.12 0.34 -0.09 -0.08 0.36 0.49 -0.52
2021 02 0.20 0.32 0.08 -0.14 -0.66 0.07 -0.27
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for February, 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
With the issue settled that the moon is not rotating on its own axis, maybe we could get back to the other biggest debate there has ever been on this blog – the Green Plate Effect. Now, the GPE was debunked some time ago now, but it is always useful to keep going over why, just so people understand that there is no such thing as back-radiation heating/insulation.
Do not feed Liar Trolls seeking attention, folks.
Nate fears such a debate.
This was the original Green Plate Effect:
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html?m=1
One of the many ways it was debunked was in adding a second green plate to the left of the blue plate, and replacing the sun with an electrical source of 400 W direct to the central blue plate. So now, with three plates in total, Eli’s math would lead you to conclude that the central blue plate would spontaneously rise in temperature from 244 K, without the green plates, to 290 K, just by adding the green plates!
Or, to put it another way, that with the plates all pushed together, the plate temperatures would be:
244 K…244 K…244 K
but if you separate them by even as little as 1 mm, the blue plate temperature shoots up:
244 K…290 K…244 K
all whilst the input and output from the system remains at 400 W!
Nope, the output drops when you separate the plates.
Even by one millimeter.
Then it goes back up when the blue plate gets hotter.
Flunkie Junkie
Incorrect.
I was correct.
You are incorrect.
When separated the green plates radiate from both sides, thus increasing the rate they are cooling.
So the amount of energy leaving the system increases and the green plates cool.
You just contradicted yourself, bob.
At 3:44 PM you said the output drops when the plates are separated.
At 5:10 PM you said the output increases.
That’s because you don’t understand the difference in the two statements.
One was describing the whole system and one was describing an individual component.
Keep trying, but you are losing the argument, again, and again, and again again.
You think the amount of energy leaving the system increases when the plates are separated.
That loses you the argument.
I was referring to the green plates in that statement.
bob, you said:
“So the amount of energy leaving the system increases and the green plates cool.”
How are you going to wriggle your way out of this one?
Here’s how it works
When separated the green plates are now radiating from both sides, and receiving energy from only one side, since they are initially at the same temperature because they were together, now the green plates have to cool, increasing the energy loss from the green plates, while at the same time decreasing the energy lost from the whole system.
Which is what you were saying doesn’t happen, that the energy leaving the system stays the same.
I hope that clarifies for you where you went wrong.
Alright I was mistaken when I said system when I meant the green plates.
I have now corrected my statement.
The green plates cool when they are separated from the blue plate in accordance with the first law of thermodynamics.
The only thing that changes when the plates are separated is that the energy transfer switches from conduction to radiation between the plates. As everything was in balance before, everything is in balance afterwards.
That’s good
Now you are on to something.
But with no temperature difference there is no energy transfer from the green plates to the blue plates, that’s a requirement for conduction.
Look up the heat conduction equation.
There is no similar requirement for energy transfer by radiation, you don’t need a temperature difference for that.
As everything was in balance before, everything is in balance afterwards.
That’s correct, except that the temperature of the blue plate has gone up.
In order to drive the energy across the gap between the plates.
244 290 244
all heat flows balanced
Are you going to show your pretty little diagram again?
Why is it impossible that the blue plate heats up when separated from the green plates?
Answer the question.
“That’s correct, except that the temperature of the blue plate has gone up.”
Incorrect. The blue plate temperature does not increase.
Yes it does, because it is receiving 400 watts from the heater and 200 watts from each of the green plates for a total of 800.
It radiates out both sides so it get to 290K.
And each green plate gets 400 from the blue plate and radiates 200 watts from each side.
It is receiving 400 W of heat from the electrical supply which causes it to be at a temperature of 244 K. The green plates, also at 244 K, send 200 W each of energy in the direction of the blue plate. But this is energy, not heat. It does not increase the temperature of the blue plate.
The green plates, at 244 K, did not cause the blue plate to rise in temperature when they were pressed against the blue plate. So there is no reason for them to do so when separated from it.
DREMT,
Another claim that is false
“But this is energy, not heat. It does not increase the temperature of the blue plate.”
It is energy, and when it hits the blue plate it gets converted to temperature or the average kinetic energy of the atoms of the blue plate, in accordance with our old buddies Stephan and Boltzmann.
“The green plates, at 244 K, did not cause the blue plate to rise in temperature when they were pressed against the blue plate. So there is no reason for them to do so when separated from it.”
Yes there is, the green plate wasn’t transferring energy to the blue plate when they were together, now that they are separated there is energy transfer from the green plate to the blue plate and thus a subsequent increase in temperature.
The green plates, at 244 K, did not cause the blue plate to rise in temperature when they were pressed against the blue plate. So there is no reason for them to do so when separated from it.
Except that they are separated, that makes a difference to the system and therefore all the energy flows must be recalculated.
Break out your abacus.
You will pretty much just say anything, bob.
Yeah, I’ll say anything,
but have you debunked anything I have said in this thread.
Nope.
Consider you debunking of the green plate effect debunked.
No.
Debunked and the greenhouse effect survives another attack by a lunatic.
No need to be rude, just because you lost another argument.
Didn’t you ask me if I was a moron earlier?
You rude little snowflake loser.
No need to continue to be rude, just because you lost another argument.
bobdroege says:
Didnt you ask me if I was a moron earlier?
You rude little snowflake loser.
====================================
Ok the tally is in. Instances of calling somebody a moron!
Bobdroege leads the pack by a wide margin throwing 47 moron epithets at people. Nate comes in a distant second at 10, 37 lengths behind Bob. Skeptic Gone Wild tallies 4 to show, 6 lengths out of placing. and the bringing up the rear of the Pack is Bill with 3 and DREMT with 1 for a grand total of 65 moron epithets. Bob Droege runs away with the Bob Droege Memorial Trophy for rudest little snowflake loser on the board.
” With the issue settled that the moon is not rotating on its own axis… ”
What?
This is what people like you PRETEND, against dozens and dozens of historical and contemporary work which uneducated people like you simply discredit, beginning with Isaac Newton’s Principia Scientifica (Book III, Proposition XVII, Theorem XV).
This issue is not settled unless you give us a real scientific proof – i.e. other than Tesla’s ridiculous, superficial quick shot – that ALL the scientific work done since centuries has been wrong.
Until now, you utterly failed in this job!
J.-P. D.
Wrong Bindidon. It is you that has failed.
You can’t understand the issue. Newton clearly identified what pure orbital motion is. It’s the motion of Moon. You can’t understand your own reference.
Wrong, Clint R!
Newton clearly wrote in his Principia Scientifica that the Moon rotates about its own axis.
Exactly what he explained in 1675 to Mercator, who confirmed that in 1676 in his publication (which of course you never read).
You prefer to ignore what these two scientists wrote.
Your problem!
J.-P. D.
Pompous Bindidon, the moon debate is over. You lost.
“Nate fears such a debate.”
Ha!
You mean the one thats been done 47 times, and hasnt been an honest debate for the last 45?
When DREMT and Toadies repeatedly lose on the facts, they simply pretend it never happened, facts don’t matter, so let’s do it again.
And the Master-baiter returns.
Its like that movie Groundhog Day.
Pompous Bindidon, the issue is settled. The moon does not rotate on its own axis. We are moving onto the Green Plate Effect, try to keep up.
You can name me ‘pompous’ as long as you want.
This cannot replace the scientific discussion that you – like Robertson, Clint R, Hunter – are absolutely unable to offer.
Since the beginning of this discussion you all limit yourself to ridiculous gimmicks, like coins, merry-go-round, ball-on-a-string, curvilinerar translations, etc etc.
Try to become an adult, give a valuable scientific proof of Moon’s unability to spin about the axis passing thru its poles, as computed by Tobias Mayer in 1749 on the basis of his own observations and computations.
J.-P. D.
Pompous Bindidon, the discussion about the moon is over. You had your chance. You failed. We are now moving on to the GPE. Get over it.
We proved you wrong seven ways from Sunday.
Proof usually doesn’t apply to science, but this case is an exception.
Why have a discussion with people who flunked eighth grade science?
bob, this:
“Or, to put it another way, that with the plates all pushed together, the plate temperatures would be:
244 K…244 K…244 K
but if you separate them by even as little as 1 mm, the blue plate temperature shoots up:
244 K…290 K…244 K
all whilst the input and output from the system remains at 400 W!”
is not physically possible. Sorry for your loss.
Why Dear DREMPT is it physically impossible?
That’s quite a claim.
I am afraid you will have to back it up with some solid evidence.
But so far all you can do is misremember the second law of thermodynamics which does not restrict heating from a hot source to a cold sink.
Sorry dude, this previous carnot cycle operator knows you are wrong.
Sorry for your loss, bob.
DREMT,
Don’t wriggle out of answering the question.
Why is it impossible that the blue plate heats up when separated from the green plates?
Where does the energy come from to warm the blue plate?
From the heater, and the green plate.
You are trying to wriggle out of answering the question.
I’ll ask again
Why is it impossible that the blue plate heats up when separated from the green plates?
The electrical supply is only providing enough energy to warm the blue plate and the green plates to 244 K. The green plates are not an energy source themselves, they only receive energy from the blue plate.
Nope, again you are wrong.
Once separated from the blue plate they are indeed a energy source.
Remember your buddy flynn?
Everything about absolute zero emits infrared radiation especially if they are blackbodies, which the plates are for this situation.
I’m not saying they don’t emit radiation, I’m saying they are not an energy source.
That’s amazing!
Something emits radiation, yet is not an energy source.
Now that’s impossible.
You have lost the argument with that.
Where does the radiation from the green plate go?
Why is it impossible that the blue plate heats up when separated from the green plates?
You still haven’t managed an answer to the question.
The green plate is not an energy source. The energy source is the electrical supply to the blue plate. The green plate is dependent on that energy source to maintain its temperature.
DREMT,
Its emitting radiation, therefore it is an energy source, even though it gets that energy from the heater, it still transfers some energy back to the blue plate.
…and the energy sent back cannot further increase the temperature of the blue plate.
And of course you can provide evidence to support this claim
“and the energy sent back cannot further increase the temperature of the blue plate.”
So why not?
Energy can be neither created nor destroyed, only altered in form.
So if it doesn’t increase the temperature of the blue plate, where does it go?
It goes back to the green plates, then ultimately, to space.
Nope,
It’s a blackbody problem, and gets absorbed by the blue plate.
I see you are now referring to your stupid diagram, previously proven to be wrong.
Whether absorbed or not, it still goes back to the green plates, then ultimately, to space.
Yeah, but it heats the blue plate up a bit while it’s there.
Sorry for your loss.
Logic is not your strong suit, obviously.
Attack the argument, not the arguer!
You lose the argument now that you are resorting to personal attacks.
What argument?
For one,
The argument that once you have separated the plates, you have changed the system, and you have to recalculate the temperatures and energy flows.
Claiming everything stays the same is not correct.
That’s not an argument, it’s hand-waving.
That’s not a counter argument, you are just trying to baffle me with bullshit, and not doing a credible job of it.
What’s the matter?
You don’t know how to do the calculations?
Put your hand over the hot stove and then put your hand on the hot stove, and you tell me the result is the same.
bob, why do you keep attacking this straw man about the hand and a stove?
DREMT,
Simply because you keep claiming that conduction and radiation transfer heat at the same rate.
Or more specifically, because you are going to claim that you are not claiming they are the same, you are claiming that separating the plates causes no change in the temperatures of the plates.
This is wrong, moron!
Can I use your skull for shielding?
I always need more shielding.
bob, you lose the argument now that you are resorting to personal attacks.
DREMT,
Since you insulted me first, by that logic you already lost the argument.
Sorry for your loss Moron.
I believe “Why have a discussion with people who flunked eighth grade science?” was the first insult, bob. From you, naturally.
No DREMT,
You started it way back when with the blob shit.
Now please go and fuck off.
I’m not going anywhere, bob. Why can’t you learn to control yourself?
DREMPT,
Why don’t you understand even eighth grade science?
Not getting thermodynamics, you might not have had enough science training for that, but why you thing you are right and a lagomorph with a PhD in physics is wrong is incredible.
Here we go.
” Pompous Bindidon, the discussion about the moon is over. You had your chance. You failed. We are now moving on to the GPE. Get over it. ”
Ha ha haaah.
The person nicknamed ‘DREMT’ reminds me the 1970’s in Germany, a period in which I had some more (unintentional) contact to hard German Communists.
Like all Communists all around the Globe, they were convinced to be always right, and hence repeated always their own stuff, regardless what others told them.
DREMT must learn that only the people interested in discussions decide about when and why discussions are over, and not self-appointed Führer.
J.-P. D.
Pompous Bindidon, you lost. Move on.
“We are moving onto the Green Plate Effect”
You are moving on.
I dont see anyone else taking the bait, liar-troll.
Theyve got your number.
After getting a beat down on the Moon like the Illini put on the Wolverines last night, he wants to move on to the green plate effect, where he was repeatedly trounced.
Looks like a 16th seed.
It is March, after all.
Must be a glutton for punishment.
The rotational period of the Moon is the same as it’s orbital period around the Earth.
That is the definition of being tidally locked, also known as synchronous rotation.
It is not even debatable.
Even if one defines the Earth as the center of the Universe, if one were to take a space elevator straight up from the North Pole to the top of it at a position 10 million miles above the Earth, and then looked down while masking the Earth from your field of view, it would be obvious that the moon spins once for every lunar month, IOW it spins on it’s axis once for every rotation around the Earth.
One can redefine what the word rotation means, but nonetheless, if I am camped out at anyplace on the surface of the moon, every month I will see the stars rotate around one time. Plus ~1/365th of an additional rotation. (except in leap years, when it is only 1/366th 🙂 )
If I am at the equator of the moon, I will see in a month the full sweep of the constellations.
If I am at the axis of rotation, the north pole of the Moon, I can look up and find one star that does not appear to move while all the rest revolve around it…exactly once per lunar month.
If it did not rotate than there is no axis, no equator, and I would always be looking at the same star field.
BTW…it also rotates once for every time it goes around the Sun.
Depending on how one defines rotation.
It gets complicamated.
Read about the different kinds of months to get an idea.
Lunations are defined by synodic months(29.53 days), but there is also the tropical month, anomalistic month, draconic month, sidereal month…
“-The sidereal month is defined as the Moon’s orbital period in a non-rotating frame of reference (which on average is equal to its rotation period in the same frame). It is about 27.32166 days (27 days, 7 hours, 43 minutes, 11.6 seconds). It is closely equal to the time it takes the Moon to pass twice a “fixed” star (different stars give different results because all have a very small proper motion and are not really fixed in position).
-A synodic month is the most familiar lunar cycle, defined as the time interval between two consecutive occurrences of a particular phase (such as new moon or full moon) as seen by an observer on Earth. The mean length of the synodic month is 29.53059 days (29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes, 2.8 seconds). Due to the eccentricity of the lunar orbit around Earth (and to a lesser degree, the Earth’s elliptical orbit around the Sun), the length of a synodic month can vary by up to seven hours.
-The tropical month is the average time for the Moon to pass twice through the same equinox point of the sky. It is 27.32158 days, very slightly shorter than the sidereal month (27.32166) days, because of precession of the equinoxes.
-An anomalistic month is the average time the Moon takes to go from perigee to perigeethe point in the Moon’s orbit when it is closest to Earth. An anomalistic month is about 27.55455 days on average.
-The draconic month, draconitic month, or nodal month is the period in which the Moon returns to the same node of its orbit; the nodes are the two points where the Moon’s orbit crosses the plane of the Earth’s orbit. Its duration is about 27.21222 days on average.
A synodic month is longer than a sidereal month because the Earth-Moon system is orbiting the Sun in the same direction as the Moon is orbiting the Earth. The Sun moves eastward with respect to the stars (as does the Moon) and it takes about 2.2 days longer for the Moon to return to the same apparent position with respect to the Sun.
An anomalistic month is longer than a sidereal month because the perigee moves in the same direction as the Moon is orbiting the Earth, one revolution in nine years. Therefore, the Moon takes a little longer to return to perigee than to return to the same star.
A draconic month is shorter than a sidereal month because the nodes move in the opposite direction as the Moon is orbiting the Earth, one revolution in 18.6 years. Therefore, the Moon returns to the same node slightly earlier than it returns to the same star.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Month
I made one false statement above.
Cookie goes to whomever spots it.
I refer you to the preceding 100,000 comment discussion on the issue, which has taken place over several years.
The issue is now settled, the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
Otay!
BTW…if it does not rotate, than it does not have it’s own axis.
Gotta be consistent.
The moon does not rotate about its own center of mass.
A ball on a string being spun around your head is not rotating about its own center of mass. It is rotating about your head. It is “orbiting” your head, and not “rotating on its own axis”.
That is what is known as sophistry my man.
Basically, if you want to try to prove something like that mathematically, you must first define some frame of reference, then make it consistent.
No, it is just a fact about rotation. A ball on a string rotates around a central, external axis, whilst keeping the same face always oriented towards that external axis. It is not rotating about its own axis (center of mass), it is rotating about an external axis. There is only one axis of rotation for the ball on a string, and it is external to the ball.
The way rotation is defined for a celestial body is why it is a fact that the moon rotates.
Consider the distinction between a solar day, a sidereal day, and a stellar day.
All are defined, as the rotation of the moon is, in terms of the International Celestial Reference Frame.
I am not sure if you are simply defining rotation by some method which has nothing to do with the way everyone else does it, or if you want to create a whole new reference frame, which would wind up making the epicycles of Ptolemy look simple by comparison.
But one reason for the misunderstanding likely has to do with the fact that it is rarely mentioned that the Earth actually rotates 366.25 times per orbit around the Sun, when viewed from this reference frame.
Simply put, no one would be able to get anything right when we sent objects into space unless we all agree on a reference frame that is consistent geometrically.
Nothing would be were it was thought to be. GPS would not work, etc.
But I am a realist.
I know from a lifetime of experience, that if someone has tied themselves to some idea over a period of years and many long hours of argumentation, only very rarely will even the most compelling and persuasive arguments will change that person’s mind.
That you seem to have decided long hence based on some tortured analogy and a single person making some declaration long before any of us were born, means that it is useless for me and irrelevant for you to point out what everyone else who has anything to say about it, thinks.
The way rotation is defined for a celestial body is why it is a fact that the moon rotates.
Sure, the moon rotates. Just not on its own axis.
Consider a reference frame where the origin is located at the Earth/moon barycenter, and the Cartesian axes remain aligned towards various distant, fixed stars. From this reference frame, you can observe that the moon rotates about the Earth/moon barycenter, and not about its own center of mass. In fact the only reference frame from which the moon appears to be rotating on its own axis is a translating reference frame where the origin is located at the center of mass of the moon, and the Cartesian axes remain aligned towards various distant, fixed stars.
DREMT: “In fact the only reference frame from which the moon appears to be rotating on its own axis is a translating reference frame where the origin is located at the center of mass of the moon, and the Cartesian axes remain aligned towards various distant, fixed stars.”
This is getting quite close. Except in this frame the moon truly is rotating on its axis. I refer you back to the “record player” description.
* If I turn on a record player, a record on the platter is rotating on its own axis.
* If I carry that whole record player in a straight line and ‘the Cartesian axes remain aligned towards various distant, fixed stars”, the record is still rotating on its own axis.
* If I carry that record player in a circle and ‘the Cartesian axes remain aligned towards various distant, fixed stars”, the record is still rotating on its own axis.
Even if I carry the record player in a circle synchronized with the rotation rate of the record player, the record is still rotating on its own axis.
“Except in this frame the moon truly is rotating on its axis.”
No, it just appears to be.
When are you claiming your Nobel Prize for disproving Euler’s Rotation Theorem?
“In geometry, Euler’s rotation theorem states that, in three-dimensional space, any displacement of a rigid body such that a point on the rigid body remains fixed, is equivalent to a single rotation about some axis that runs through the fixed point. It also means that the composition of two rotations is also a rotation. Therefore the set of rotations has a group structure, known as a rotation group. The theorem is named after Leonhard Euler, who proved it in 1775 by means of spherical geometry. The axis of rotation is known as an Euler axis, typically represented by a unit vector . Its product by the rotation angle is known as an axis-angle vector. The extension of the theorem to kinematics yields the concept of instant axis of rotation, a line of fixed points. In linear algebra terms, the theorem states that, in 3D space, any two Cartesian coordinate systems with a common origin are related by a rotation about some fixed axis. This also means that the product of two rotation matrices is again a rotation matrix and that for a non-identity rotation matrix one eigenvalue is 1 and the other two are both complex, or both equal to −1. The eigenvector corresponding to this eigenvalue is the axis of rotation connecting the two systems.”
“When are you claiming your Nobel Prize for disproving Euler’s Rotation Theorem?”
I’m not.
If I am standing on the north pole of the ball on the string, looking at the person the ball is being spun around, he is not moving, but everything else is.
So what is the reference frame that says the sphere I am standing on is not rotating?
The sphere you are standing on is rotating. Just not on its own axis (about its own center of mass).
BTW…I am curious. Where did this idea originate?
It seems to be one of those myths that every single text has discussed for over a century.
Such discussions have a far longer history than 100,000 comments on Roy’s page.
Nikola Tesla argued the moon does not rotate on its own axis in three articles published over a hundred years ago now, but I think the idea predates Tesla.
In order to prove mathematically that the moon is not rotating, one has to rewrite the formula for a stationary synchronous orbit.
If the Moon is not rotating, then all of celestial mechanics has to be rewritten, and then so does everything in the physics of angular momentum, inertia, etc.
It is gonna be a tough slog.
I’ll leave you too it.
I’m gonna stick to something easy…proving warmista are full of crap.
I have no doubt that it might be possible to rewrite everything so Tesla is correct, and make it all mathematically consistent.
But you have to rewrite EVERYTHING.
The moon is rotating…just not on its own axis (about its own center of mass). The Earth both “orbits” and “rotates on its own axis”, the moon only “orbits”.
But anyway, that discussion is over now. On to the GPE…
Nicholas McGinley
It seems that like so many others before, you have put your finger in a hornet’s nest.
I don’t know what’s the matter with these stubborn, arrogant people (DREMT, Clint R, Robertson, Swenson, hunter).
They simply deliberately ignore what so many people observed since millennia, and computed since centuries.
And that just because a little Serbian inventer wrote a century ago a superficial article in a little newspaper!
Cassini, Mercator, Newton, Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace?
Habibullin, Rizvanov, Eckhardt, Koziel, Calamé, Migus, Moons, the Apollo, Selene and Chang’e teams?
You will be told by our geniuses that they simply all didn’t understand what they were talking about!
The proof?
” If the Moon shows all times the same face to us, it can’t rotate! ”
Like the race horse on the merry-go-round.
La vie est simple; pourquoi donc la rendre inutilement compliquée?
J.-P. D.
“But anyway, that discussion is over now.”
Heeeey…I heard someone else use this method of argumentation once, if I could just recall who…
In any case, I have to go as well, real busy now.
I have to go rotate the tires on my Tesla.
Guess what I named my Tesla?
It’s not a method of argumentation, Nicholas, it’s just that this debate has been done to death. Not sure how you’ve missed it, unless you are new to the blog.
Bindidon,
Yes, I realized that before I dropped the first comment.
But I had mercifully been blissfully unaware of this particular controversy up until this evening, and was very curious what it is all about.
I spent years studying all of this sort of thing, but this idea had escaped my attention.
One time I spent a few days arguing with some guy who is sure that there is no such thing as convection, (and maybe condensation too…?), and that humid air is actually more dense than dry air.
Everything is vortexes…
Showed him a time lapse of a thunderstorm forming, he said it is not what everyone thinks it is…
Had it all worked out in his own mind.
Some people who have never spent much time getting a formal education seem to have the idea that everyone just make everything up. One idea is as likely to be correct as another…
IDK if that is what is going on here.
Certainly Tesla was a guy who figured out some stuff and got it right, in the area of his expertise. In a freshman physics class, one has to pay some serious attention when they get to the stuff Tesla did. But that was how it is with every chapter of college level science texts.
I do not recall anything about Tesla in any physical geography or astronomy textbooks I read.
OK, one last question: Mercury is also tidally locked, but to the Sun.
However, it is in 3:2 spin-orbit resonance.
So, under the moon earth paradigm that the moon does not rotate, apparently the first rotation in every orbital period does not count.
So, does Mercury rotate, and if so, how fast?
(I am not gonna open the can of worms re the Sun and Earth.
If one subtracts one rotation per year(B/c one rotation per year does not count as rotation), everything has to be rejiggered.)
BTWI am curious. Where did this idea originate?
It certainly did not originate with DREMT. He is incapable of independent thought. He just yaps other people’s bogus slogans like a mutt.
https://i.gifer.com/3VjS.gif
He has no physics, kinematics or kinetics education. Everything he states is just completely backwards.
OK, SGW.
“The issue is now settled, the moon does not rotate on its own axis.”
Its settled inside the crania of a few cranks.
Everyone else is happy with Astrophysics.
“It seems that like so many others before, you have put your finger in a hornet’s nest.”
Bindidon, the moon debate is over. Time to move on.
“Or, to put it another way, that with the plates all pushed together, the plate temperatures would be:
244 K…244 K…244 K
but if you separate them by even as little as 1 mm, the blue plate temperature shoots up:
244 K…290 K…244 K
all whilst the input and output from the system remains at 400 W!”
Not physically possible.
The first law of thermodynamics says you’re wrong.
Dare I ask where I might get a primer on this whole thing with the plates?
Incorrect, bob.
DREMT,
Why is it not physically possible?
Don’t wriggle out of answering the question.
Whats a matter, you don’t understand physics well enough to give a coherent answer?
Where does the energy come from to warm the blue plate?
That’s not a coherent answer.
Why is it impossible that the blue plate heats up when separated from the green plates?
Answer the question.
How is it possible? Where does the energy come from to warm the blue plate?
The electrical supply is only providing enough energy to warm the blue plate and the green plates to 244 K. The green plates are not an energy source themselves, they only receive energy from the blue plate.
Yes, the green plates receive energy from the blue plate, and they emit some of that energy back to the blue plate.
Why is it impossible that the blue plate heats up when separated from the green plates?
Answer the question.
You are not doing so well.
It is impossible because there is no additional energy to warm the blue plate. Are you a moron? You should be attempting to explain how it is possible, not asking me to explain the obvious.
Why does it require additional energy?
If you slow the energy loss from an object it will warm up.
You lose the argument by questioning whether or not I am a moron.
You made the claim that it was impossible for the blue plate to increase in temperature, I see you have failed to support your claim.
NEXT
You are not slowing the energy loss from the object, bob. Literally the only change you are making is separating the plates, thus the energy transfer switches from conduction to radiation.
Yeah Right DREMT
Hold your hand above a hot stove.
Now put your hand on the stove.
Now you tell me the heat transfer is the same!
Conduction and radiation are different forms of heat transfer, they even use different equations.
And you claim they are the same.
You lose.
Name a real-life scenario where breaking an object into three pieces makes the middle piece increase in temperature.
I’ll do that when you do the calculation for the separated plates.
Note that the plates are just being separated, nothing is being broken into three pieces.
That’s right, there’s no such real-life scenario.
Well not something that was broken in three places,
but I have used a thermocouple to measure the temperature of a heater block, and adding the insulation to the tube the thermocouple was inserted through did in fact raise the temperature of the heater block. By lowering the rate of heat loss from the object.
So in essence, adding insulation to an object constantly heated by a constant powered heater, resulted in the objects temperature increasing.
So to answer your question, this effect has been observed in a real life situation.
We’re not talking about insulation, bob. We’re talking about separating three identical objects.
DREMT,
Any type of matter can act as insulation, as it takes some energy to drive the heat flow through the matter.
So yes it is about insulation.
The green plates act as insulation slowing the heat loss from the blue plate and causing it to increase in temperature once the plates are separated.
And we don’t have three identical items, the blue plate has a heater in it.
“The green plates act as insulation slowing the heat loss from the blue plate and causing it to increase in temperature…”
…then they would do so with the plates pushed together. But they don’t.
The TEAM of MORONS requires people to believe that there is no difference in the burning feeling one gets when touching a hot object vs merely hovering over it.
Like the other argument, the TEAM requires people to forget all of their common sense!
And why don’t they at least bring up NEW faux controversies to dishonestly debate?
Do owls exist?
Is 11 really greater than 9?
Im mean is it really?
Nicholas said: Dare I ask where I might get a primer on this whole thing with the plates?
The thought experiment comes from Eli Rabbit.
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2017/10/an-evergreen-of-denial-is-that-colder.html
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-simplest-green-plate-effect.html
There are different flavors of it that have been discussed in the comment section here.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-627454
“Now you tell me the heat transfer is the same!
Conduction and radiation are different forms of heat transfer, they even use different equations.
And you claim they are the same.
You lose.”
So that quite literally settles that!
Thanks Bob.
This un-needed debate is thankfully over.
“Conduction and radiation are different forms of heat transfer, they even use different equations.
And you claim they are the same.”
No I don’t claim they are the same, what I claim is that you are not slowing the energy loss from the object, bob. Literally the only change you are making is separating the plates, thus the energy transfer switches from conduction to radiation.
Well, I am going to keep beating this horse, until it’s dead, and then I am going to put a saddle on it.
DREMT,
It should be obvious that if you change the method of heat transfer from conduction to radiation, the rate is going to change.
I guess I need a bigger two by four.
Obviously if you remove your hand from a hot stove, it stops burning. Unless its a really hot stove, then the burning only slows down.
Your hand is not an ultra-thin perfectly-conducting blackbody plate separated from the other plate (stove) by only a mm, with view factors = 1 between the two, in a vacuum.
‘Conduction and radiation are different forms of heat transfer, they even use different equations.
And you claim they are the same.’
“No I don’t claim they are the same, what I claim is that you are not slowing the energy loss from the object, bob.”
‘Not slowing the energy loss’ = heat transfer is unchanged.
Dont let him obfuscate his way out of the fact that the argument is already settled, Bob.
Here’s the thing, bob. Your argument relies on the energy lost from the system decreasing when the plates are separated. Whether the plates are together or separated, energy loss from the system is via radiation from the outer sides of the green plates. So why would changing the mode of energy transfer between the plates cause the energy loss from the outside of the plates to decrease?
DREMPT,
When the plates are separated, the green plates are now radiating from both sides for a total output of 400 watts, and since they are only getting 200 watts from the blue plate, their temperature must go down, so less energy is leaving the system as their temperature goes down.
“So why would changing the mode of energy transfer between the plates cause the energy loss from the outside of the plates to decrease?”
Because the green plates are now radiating towards the blue plate, when before when they were not separated, there wasn’t transfer from the green plate to the blue plate.
Since the whole system can only shed energy from the green plates and they have started to cool, the whole system loses less energy and must heat up from the input of 400 watts from the heater.
Now you tell me why all that is impossible.
All that has changed is that the blue and green plates, which were formerly exchanging energy via conduction, are now exchanging energy via radiation. The system has an input of 400 W, and an output of 400 W, with the plates pressed together at 244 K…244 K…244 K. The system also has an input of 400 W, and an output of 400 W, with the plates separated at 244 K…244 K…244 K.
Even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that the output was to decrease when the plates are separated (due to a temperature decrease of the green plates) then why would the energy accumulated by the system not just raise the temperatures of the green plates back to 244 K again, without affecting the blue plate temperature!?
DREMT
“Even if we accept, for the sake of argument, that the output was to decrease when the plates are separated (due to a temperature decrease of the green plates) then why would the energy accumulated by the system not just raise the temperatures of the green plates back to 244 K again, without affecting the blue plate temperature!?”
Because for the green plates to get back to 244, they have to have an input of 400 watts, so the blue plate has to increase its temperature to 290 so it is radiating 400 watts to each side.
Because to be at a temperature of 244, when the green plate is radiating from both sides, it has to receive a total of 400 watts.
Nonsense, bob. The green plates are not each receiving 400 W from the blue plate when the plates are pressed together, yet you are happy to accept that their temperature remains at 244 K then.
DREMT,
That’s because the green plates are only losing energy from one side, when pressed together.
When separated they are losing energy from both sides.
So in order to stay at 244, when separated, they have to receive twice as much energy as when pressed together.
Nonsense, bob. The green plates are no more “losing energy” on the side facing the blue plates when they are separated than they were when they were pressed together.
DREMT
“Nonsense, bob. The green plates are no more “losing energy” on the side facing the blue plates when they are separated than they were when they were pressed together.”
Yeah, they are, when pressed together the green plate is not radiating toward the blue plate, and its not even conducting towards the blue plate since they are at the same temperature.
Try just doing the energy balance for the plates separated, the answer has to be the same as the final result when you start together and then separate.
I don’t think you can get the right answer if you don’t do the calculations.
You won’t even try that.
Did you even put your name on top of your homework?
Class, who turned in this blank sheet of paper?
The green plates are no more “losing energy” on the side facing the blue plates when they are separated than they were when they were pressed together.
Class, who turned in this blank sheet of paper?
For the “3-plate” problem, with emissivity and view factors equal to one, the heat flow equation is simply:
Q = σ (Tb^4 Tg^4)
We know at equilibrium, Q should be zero (as temperatures are not fixed, only the electrical input of 400 W to the central blue plate) so rearrange the equation:
0 = Tb^4 Tg^4
Tb = Tg
and this applies between each of the two surrounding green plates and the blue.
The 400 W input means that we know the blue plate is emitting 200 W/m^2 (assuming its 1m^2 per side). Then, using the Stefan-Boltzmann Law:
E = σT^4
Tb = (200/σ)^0.25
Tb = 244 K
So with Tb = Tg, at 244 K244 K244 K, you have 400 W coming in to the system via the electrical supply to the blue plate, and 400 W going out (200 W from each of the two green plates); so the system is in balance.
WordPress left out the “minus” signs. Oh well.
DREMT, why are you afraid of running the GPE tests? Your testing won’t leave out minus signs.
Just did so. All tests passed. At 244 K…244 K…244 K, separated, the plates have:
1) 400 W input to the system and a 400 W output. 1LoT satisfied.
2) Heat flow has gone to zero between the plates, as it tends towards wherever possible (and with this idealized thought experiment, it is indeed possible). Radiative Heat Transfer Equation satisfied.
DREMT told us wordpress left out the minus signs, a test would not do that. DREMT is caught out yet again.
As usual, you are just trolling.
DREMT,
Here is your error, please correct and resubmit.
“We know at equilibrium, Q should be zero (as temperatures are not fixed, only the electrical input of 400 W to the central blue plate) so rearrange the equation:”
No error. Heat flow tends towards zero wherever possible, and with this idealized thought experiment, it is indeed possible.
DREMT: “thought experiment”
See, DREMT is afraid to do actual testing. Why is that DREMT? Show us your actual experimental results.
DREMT,
There is 400 watts heat input to the blue plate and 400 watts leaving the system, so there has to be some heat flow from the blue plate to the green plate, 200 watts from the blue to each green plate, so use 200 instead of 0 and see what you get.
DREMT said: We know at equilibrium, Q should be zero
True. But you can’t just assume the BP and GPs are at equilibrium when the entire system is in steady state. That’s actually the whole crux of the problem. That is…you are supposed to figure out what the temperature of the BP and GPs are after the system has achieved steady state. Then and only then can you make statements about whether the BP and GPs are at equilibrium or not.
And using the heat transfer equation we can see that…
GP-left -> BP is 200 W/m^2 over 0.5*A
GP-right -> BP is 200 W/m^2 over 0.5*A
input -> BP is 400 W/m^2 over 1.0*A
…and…
BP -> GP-left is 200 W/m^2 over 0.5*A
BP -> GP-right is 200 W/m^2 over 0.5*A
The BP is thus receiving a total a 600 W/m^2 over 1.0*A, but only sending 200 W/m^2 over 1.0*A to the GPs.
Therefore the BP is NOT in steady state when at the initial 244K..244K..244K configuration.
“…so there has to be some heat flow from the blue plate to the green plate…”
Wrong. There does not have to be heat flow between the plates.
bdgwx, you are not even using the heat flow equation (RHTE).
DREMT,
“…so there has to be some heat flow from the blue plate to the green plate…”
Wrong. There does not have to be heat flow between the plates.”
Yes there does, otherwise the 400 watts just continuously heats the blue plate, until it melts.
bob, when the plates are pushed together at 244 K…244 K…244 K, you accept that the blue plate does not continuously heat until it melts.
The only thing that changes on separation is the mode of energy transfer between the plates. Why can’t you people get it through your heads that splitting an object into three does not result in the middle section spontaneously rising in temperature by 46 K!?
DREMPT,
“bob, when the plates are pushed together at 244 K…244 K…244 K, you accept that the blue plate does not continuously heat until it melts.”
That’s because it takes a very small temperature difference for heat flow by conduction.
It does take a temperature difference of some magnitude to drive heat flow by radiation.
You are claiming no temperature difference for heat flow by radiative transfer.
The radiative heat transfer equation you quoted requires that there is a temperature difference.
Bottom line is you have to have a temperature difference between the blue and green plates in order to have heat flow through to space, otherwise the heat stays in the blue plates, and that’s not the condition of the problem. You have to have heat flowing out of the system.
DREMT said: bdgwx, you are not even using the heat flow equation (RHTE).
Doh…I mean to say the SB equation.
My point stands. The initial 244K..244K..244K configuration is not steady state because the BP is receiving more energy than it is sending. The BP is accumulating energy per the 1LOT.
Please get the system into a steady-state and resubmit for review.
bob, there doesn’t need to be heat flow between the plates when they are separated in order to “drive” energy through the system. The required 400 W is already leaving the system to space by virtue of the green plates being at 244 K. You see, energy flows via radiation without need of a temperature difference, simply because all objects radiate based on their temperature and emissivity.
bdgwx…I am just going to ignore you, OK? Since you have apparently ignored everything I have said up until this point. No offense.
No offense taken. Just understand that if you are going to ignore the 1LOT and the fact that the initial 244K..244K..244K configuration is not steady state then I have no choice but to reject your argument and accept the argument that the BP will warm. No offense meant to you either.
“Show us your actual experimental results.”
Who knew Ball4 was talking about conducting an actual experiment!?
OK, since I now understand what he is talking about…Hughes already conducted two experiments on the GPE and found that there was no warming effect. I can also confirm from a lifetime of occasionally separating objects from other objects that I have never observed any spontaneous warming of the central object.
Why is DREMT afraid to show Hughes detailed experiment? Good that DREMT has observed no spontaneous warming though, or DREMT could sell it for great gain.
Why does Ball4 write “DREMT” so many times in his comments? Who knows.
DREMT,
Allrighty then,
Let’s take a look at your latest failure to understand the physics.
“bob, there doesn’t need to be heat flow between the plates when they are separated in order to “drive” energy through the system. The required 400 W is already leaving the system to space by virtue of the green plates being at 244 K. You see, energy flows via radiation without need of a temperature difference, simply because all objects radiate based on their temperature and emissivity.”
I said there is a need for a temperature difference for there to be heat flow due to radiative heat transfer. Here is the equation you posted, I’ll add the minus sign.
Q = σ (Tb^4 – Tg^4)
And you said energy flows without the need for a temperature difference, but I said heat, and there is a difference.
You are confused about the difference between energy flow and heat flow.
And for the heat to flow out of the system, from the heater to space, there has to be heat flow between the blue plate and the green plates, else the green plates will cool.
And your radiative heat transfer equation requires a temperature difference between the blue plate and the green plates.
Gee, what is the next thing you will get wrong.
Once again, bob… there doesn’t need to be heat flow between the plates when they are separated in order to “drive” energy through the system. The required 400 W is already leaving the system to space by virtue of the green plates being at 244 K. You see, energy flows via radiation without need of a temperature difference, simply because all objects radiate based on their temperature and emissivity. Q tends towards zero wherever possible, and in this idealized thought experiment it is indeed possible. You are trying to hold Q constant, and claim as a result that the blue plate should increase in temperature. Tut, tut.
DrEMT
Violation, flag, whistle blows.
“Once again, bob there doesnt need to be heat flow between the plates when they are separated in order to drive energy through the system.”
That violates the first law of thermodynamics.
Like I said before, there has to be heat flow from the blue plate to the green plates for steady state energy leaving the system.
And since the method of that heat transfer is radiative, there has to be a temperature difference.
In your “solution” there is no heat flow from the blue to green, so there is no where for the 400 watts provided by the heater to go, so it stays in the blue plate, heating it until it melts.
And again, if there is no heat flow from blue to green, the green plate cools and no longer emits the 400 watts necessary from both plates.
Looks like you have been hoisted by your own posted equation.
“That violates the first law of thermodynamics.”
No, bob. With the plates separated at 244 K…244 K…244 K, there is 400 W input into the system, and 400 W output. No 1LoT violation.
“Like I said before, there has to be heat flow from the blue plate to the green plates for steady state energy leaving the system.”
and like I said before, that is wrong. There does not have to be heat transfer between the plates. There is already 400 W leaving the system to space by virtue of the green plates being at 244 K. You see, energy flows via radiation without need of a temperature difference, simply because all objects radiate based on their temperature and emissivity.
“In your “solution” there is no heat flow from the blue to green, so there is no where for the 400 watts provided by the heater to go, so it stays in the blue plate, heating it until it melts.”
The 400 W provided by the electrical input is leaving via the green plates to space, as already explained.
“And again, if there is no heat flow from blue to green, the green plate cools and no longer emits the 400 watts necessary from both plates.”
If there was heat flow from blue to green, the green plates would be warming up.
DrEMT MORON
“No, bob. With the plates separated at 244 K…244 K…244 K, there is 400 W input into the system, and 400 W output. No 1LoT violation.”
NO MORON, in order for heat to flow out of the system it has to flow through all parts of the system
“and like I said before, that is wrong. There does not have to be heat transfer between the plates. There is already 400 W leaving the system to space by virtue of the green plates being at 244 K. You see, energy flows via radiation without need of a temperature difference, simply because all objects radiate based on their temperature and emissivity.”
NO MORON
The heat flow isn’t getting to the green plates because there is no heat flow from blue to green if there is no temperature difference.
“The 400 W provided by the electrical input is leaving via the green plates to space, as already explained.”
No it’s not MORON, because there is no heat flow from blue to green because there is no temperature difference in your solution.
“If there was heat flow from blue to green, the green plates would be warming up.”
Yes the green plates have to heat up to return to 244, because they started cooling when the plates were separated.
MORON
I am done for now, go check out a book on thermodynamics or heat transfer or something.
Give the rabbett a call, he’s a nice guy and can explain where you go wrong.
Else be a MORON.
Or do the experiment with a couple of plates, a thermocouple, and a stove, like I did and verified that the plate nearest the heat source increases in temperature when another plate is added.
“In your “solution” there is no heat flow from the blue to green, so there is no where for the 400 watts provided by the heater to go, so it stays in the blue plate, heating it until it melts.”
The 400 W provided by the electrical input is leaving via the green plates to space, as already explained.
“And again, if there is no heat flow from blue to green, the green plate cools and no longer emits the 400 watts necessary from both plates.”
If there was heat flow from blue to green, the green plates would be warming up.
“NO MORON, in order for heat to flow out of the system it has to flow through all parts of the system”
Nonsense, bob. If heat was flowing from the blue plate to the green, the green plates would have to be warming up.
I wrote: “The 400 W provided by the electrical input is leaving via the green plates to space, as already explained.”
bob hyper-aggressively responded: “No it’s not MORON, because there is no heat flow from blue to green because there is no temperature difference in your solution.”
400 W is leaving to space via the green plates, simply because they are at 244 K. You see, energy flows via radiation without need of a temperature difference, simply because all objects radiate based on their temperature and emissivity.
I believe the rest of your comment is just you getting yourself confused, and repeating the same mistakes over and over whilst shouting insults like a child. That’s that.
So DREMT remains afraid to show detail test results backing assertions. There aren’t any experiments, those assertions fail.
DREMT,
If the BP is 1 meter in length with total surface area of 2 m^2 counting both sides then in each second the BP is absorbing (400 * 2) + (200 * 1) + (200 * 1) = 1200 joules and emitting (200 * 1) + (200 * 1) = 400 joules. The 1LOT therefore say that dE = 1200 – 400 = +800 joules every second. Steady-state is when dE = 0 for each component of the system. The BP is therefore NOT in steady-state. Fix that issue first and then resubmit your solution for review.
I told you, Ball4, Hughes conducted two experiments and found no warming of the blue plate. Using the magic of the internet, you can find the details for yourself.
DREMT now asserts there are detail experiments that appear by “magic” somewhere on the internet and is still afraid to show the experimental details. In reality, no detail, replicable experiments by a mysterious “Hughes” exist with the claimed DREMT GPE energy balance. Would that be Howard I wonder? The assertions remain baseless.
Do a Google search for “Geraint Hughes green plate effect”.
“We know at equilibrium, Q should be zero (as temperatures are not fixed, only the electrical input of 400 W to the central blue plate) so rearrange the equation:
0 = Tb^4 Tg^4
Tb = Tg”
DREMT has had so so many chances to learn what Equilibrium means. But each time he denied the textbook definitions and it went whoosh over his head.
In any case, this is yet another instance of DREMT using the magic of CIRCULAR LOGIC.
Equilibrium means EQUAL temperature.
Sooo, if we just ASSUME Equilibrium, we get what we desire, EQUAL temperatures!
A minor problem, Equilibrium ALSO means ZERO heat flows.
This is NOT EQUILIBRIUM.
But once a moron, always a moron .
To clarify the heat flow in and out is 400 W. Clearly NOT ZERO.
This not equilibrium.
“Or, to put it another way, that with the plates all pushed together, the plate temperatures would be:
244 K…244 K…244 K
but if you separate them by even as little as 1 mm, the blue plate temperature shoots up:
244 K…290 K…244 K
all whilst the input and output from the system remains at 400 W!”
First step. Realize that the above is impossible. If you split an object into three sections, the middle section does not just randomly rise in temperature. It doesn’t happen. So there is definitely something wrong with Eli’s logic.
Let me know when you have all got to Step 1).
3:07pm: “Do a Google search for “Geraint Hughes green plate effect”.”
That string leads to conductive, convective, AND S-B radiative energy transfer experiments. Apparently “using the magic of the internet” really is needed to find DREMT radiative energy transfer only GPE experiments as 1LOT eqn.s are written by DREMT “with the plates separated at 244 K…244 K…244 K, there is 400 W input into the system, and 400 W output.”.
DREMT remains still afraid to show the experimental details to support baseless assertions.
Poor Ball4, struggling to use the internet. Bless him.
Poor DREMT, struggling to get radiative energy transfer physics assertions correct without experimental evidence. Bless him.
Finger touching pan: a severe burn
“if you separate them by even as little as 1 mm”: just hot.
“First step. Realize that the above is impossible.”
First step: Realize that you are supremely ignorant about Heat Transfer, and are failing to use common sense.
2nd step: When exposed to real physics, learn it.
More oddities:
2 separated objects, one heated, both end up the same temperature!
3 separated objects, middle one heated, all end up the same temperature!
Maybe ask someone with common sense, like your mom, if these sound right.
Once again…first step. Realize that the above is impossible. If you split an object into three sections, the middle section does not just randomly rise in temperature. It doesnt happen. So there is definitely something wrong with Elis logic.
Let me know when you have all got to Step 1).
“the middle section does not just randomly rise in temperature.”
Uhhh..
It has a heater attached.
The separated sections no longer have a heater attached.
Nothing random about it.
Let me know when you have all got to Step 1).
And yet the imbalance on the BP is +400 W/m^2. Which do you think is more likely to be correct…your intuition or the 1LOT?
Building a Bridge for Dummies. by DREMT
Step 1: Just go with your gut.
Step 2: Not in Equilibrium? No worries, it’ll get there.
So none of you can even get to step one…the basic sanity check…
I think we can call this debate over
“Once again…first step. Realize that the above is impossible. If you split an object into three sections, the middle section does not just randomly rise in temperature. It doesnt happen. So there is definitely something wrong with Elis logic.”
Because DREMPT is forgetting that there is a heater attached to one of the objects.
He also forgets Eli didn’t do the three plate problem.
And he is a couple apostrophes short of a coherent sentence.
DREMT, I missed this long session you’ve had with the idiots. It’s fun to now read some of their desperate attempts to pervert reality. They clearly don’t understand physics or thermodynamics.
(I have business to do this morning, but will chime in at the bottom when I get back. I don’t want to miss anymore such fun!)
Absolutely, ClintR. Why should I have all the fun?
What business you got ClintR
Rappin with your band, The Insane Clown Posse?
Unheated and heated objects will be equally warm.
…the basic insanity check.
Let us know when you’ve taken your meds.
“Because DREMPT is forgetting that there is a heater attached to one of the objects.”
That doesn’t make the impossible, possible.
“He also forgets Eli didn’t do the three plate problem.”
It’s simply an extension of the logic from his two plate problem.
“Why should I have all the fun?”
How to be a Narcissist for Dummies, by The TEAM.
1. Invite ridicule with ridiculous claims.
2. Get ridiculed.
3. Repeat
This was one of the places you lost it, bob:
“That’s because the green plates are only losing energy from one side, when pressed together.
When separated they are losing energy from both sides.
So in order to stay at 244, when separated, they have to receive twice as much energy as when pressed together.”
Laughable.
DREMT,
Three identical objects together, the middle one heated by a heater.
Then separated such that the heater is only connected to one of the objects.
And you claim that it is impossible for the one object to increase in temperature, because now it’s the only one connected to the heater.
What’s happening to the two objects no longer connected to the heater, are they staying the same temperature or are they cooling or heating?
Clown Posse
“So in order to stay at 244, when separated, they have to receive twice as much energy as when pressed together.
Laughable.”
No, not laughable, first law, clown.
In real life, in a vacuum, the objects no longer immediately adjacent to the heated object would cool, due to radiative losses past the edges of the object. However, in the idealized thought experiment, there are no such losses, because view factors between the objects are treated as 1. So there is no reason for the green plates to cool on separation in the thought experiment.
“No, not laughable, first law, clown.”
I didn’t realize the first law states that a change in energy transfer from conduction to radiation suddenly means an object needs to receive twice as much energy to stay at the same temperature!
Let it be written, let it be done, on whatever it is that they write things down.
That on this day the sixth of March in the year 2021 anno dominoes, that a member of the clown posse learned something.
I’m glad you are learning, bob.
I am not in the clown posse DREMT,
That’s you and your buddies.
DREMT, ClintR, Gordon, and Swenson, and anyone else who think 244, 244, 244 is correct when the plates are separated, and that the Moon doesn’t rotate on its own internal axis.
Seems like you are being pretty childish, bob.
I asked my non-nerd, common-sensible wife about the original two plate problem.
Two plates side by side in space, one exposed to the heat of the sun. Will they be at the same temperature?
No hesitation: the one in the sun will be warmer, Duh.
The other plate will warm up, just not as much.
Three plate problem took her longer, but again, she concluded the middle heated plate will be warmer.
Why does the TEAM lack such common sense?
The splitting up the plates is leading the TEAM down a rabbit hole.
Easier just to compare:
1. One heated plate in space @ 3K.
vs
2. Same heated plate, but now surrounded by two unheated plates.
The unheated plates will warm by the radiation from the heated plate.
Now the heated plate is surrounded by two warm objects, INSTEAD OF being surrounded by the Cold of Space as in (1).
Is the heated plate hotter now that it is blocked from directly viewing the Cold of Space?
Of course it is!
The common-sensible among us will get it.
DREMPT
Your argument breaks down to 1 + 1 = 1
Surely you can do better than that.
I wrote:
"Wrong. There does not have to be heat flow between the plates.”
bob responded:
"Yes there does, otherwise the 400 watts just continuously heats the blue plate, until it melts."
Another one of my favorite bob moments.
“Yes there does, otherwise the 400 watts just continuously heats the blue plate, until it melts.”
Well put, Bob.
Only a moron would deny that logic.
DrEMPT
Doubles down on the 1 + 1 = 1 argument
“I wrote:
“Wrong. There does not have to be heat flow between the plates.”
bob responded:
“Yes there does, otherwise the 400 watts just continuously heats the blue plate, until it melts.”
Another one of my favorite bob moments.”
There was heat transfer from the blue plate to the green plates before they were separated, now when they are separated, there is no heat flow????????????????????????????????????????
So the argument is 1+1+1+1=1
bob, there is no heat flow between the plates when they are at the same temperature…and there doesn’t need to be, because the green plates are radiating the required 400 W to space just by virtue of being at 244 K…whether the plates are together or separated. 400 W in matches 400 W out.
“and there doesnt need to be, because the green plates are radiating the required 400 W to space just by virtue of being at 244 K”
Sure in moron-world where temperatures and heat flows are whatever DREMT declares them to be.
In the real world, where 1LOT applies, the Green plate needs to get its 400 W of heat going out replaced by 400 W of heat coming in, else it just COOLS DOWN.
DREMTY,
As usual you make mistake after mistake
Let’s break it down
“bob, there is no heat flow between the plates when they are at the same temperatureand there doesnt need to be, because the green plates are radiating the required 400 W to space just by virtue of being at 244 Kwhether the plates are together or separated. 400 W in matches 400 W out.
One, If the green are radiating to space with no heat transfer between the plates, they are cooling and not maintaining the 400 watts output from both green plates.
Two, since they are cooling, they aren’t radiating at 400 watts from both anymore.
Third, of course, if there isn’t any heat transfer from the blue plate to the green plate, then the 400 watts stays in the blue plate continuing to heat it up until it melts.
1LOT
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
DeltaU = Q – W
For the Green plate what would that require?
There is no Work being done on or by the Green plate.
DeltaU = 0 if the temperature is steady, so we have
Q = net heat input = 0
= Qin + Qout.
Qout = -400 W.
Qin = 400 W
QED.
Notice there are no other forms of energy involved.
bob, you are just repeating the same mistakes. On separation, the only way the blue plate could “heat up until it melts’ is if it were accumulating the 400 W without being able to radiate at all! But there is nothing stopping the blue plate from radiating.
If heat were transferring from the blue plate to the green, the green plates would have to be increasing in temperature.
DREMPTY.
I am not repeating the same mistakes over and over, you are.
Let’s look at you last statement.
“bob, you are just repeating the same mistakes. On separation, the only way the blue plate could “heat up until it melts’ is if it were accumulating the 400 W without being able to radiate at all! But there is nothing stopping the blue plate from radiating.”
The blue plate is radiating to the green plate, transferring energy to the green plates, which are also radiating transferring energy to the blue plate. With the temp the same the energy radiating in to the blue plate is the same as the energy radiating out.
“If heat were transferring from the blue plate to the green, the green plates would have to be increasing in temperature.”
Which it does, because the green plates drop in temperature when separated because they radiate 400 watts out due to the 244 temperature and radiating out of both sides. So the green plates cool until the blue plate heats up and starts transferring heat to the green plate on the way to 244 290 244. Which is the solution which obeys all heat transfer equations as well as both the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
You are getting a beat down, just like the Illini just put on the Ohio State Buckeyes!
You are not listening, and are just babbling incoherently.
On separation, the only way the blue plate could “heat up until it melts’ is if it were accumulating the 400 W without being able to radiate at all! But there is nothing stopping the blue plate from radiating.
If heat were transferring from the blue plate to the green, the green plates would have to be increasing in temperature.
“If heat were transferring from the blue plate to the green, the green plates would have to be increasing in temperature.”
Yes, if, for some inexplicable reason, I IGNORE the heat flowing OUT from the Green plate to space.
You know the 400 W.
Why why why would I, DREMT, IGNORE the obvious flow of heat flowing OUT of the Green plate??
Is it because, I, DREMT, am a moron?
Or is it because, I, DREMT, just don’t care if I don’t make any sense?
Cuz, Im just here to Troll?
bob, have you got to Step 1 yet?
Looks like: Just here to TROLL.
No reply from bob. Maybe he’s finally worked it out.
Drempt,
No I have not gotten to your step one, because that step involves ignoring that there is a heater attached to one of the pieces.
How about you get to my step one?
Set up the heat transfer equations to model the system.
Then step two would be to solve them.
You seem to want to avoid doing that at all costs, hence you get the wrong answer.
Yes bob, I did that, on March 5 at 6:57 AM. Sorry you didn’t understand.
Having an electrical supply of 400 W to the central piece does not make the impossible, possible. Let me know when you have got to Step 1.
DREMT,
Here is the correct solution, no more bullshit from you.
400 watts in to the system so 200 watts out from each green plate, so the green plates are at 244.
The blue plate gets 400 watts from the heater, and 200 watts from each of the green plates, for a total of 800 watts, it has to lose that 800 watts from 2 sides, so emits 400 watts from each side, so its temperature is 290.
So it’s 244 290 244.
Stop lying that you set up and solved the equations correctly.
You would have gotten 244, 290, 244 if you had.
I am done with this subthread, take it to the bottom if you have anything new to argue.
You don’t, all your objections to the correct solution have been shown to be bullshit.
So unless you have something new, I am done arguing with the village idiot.
That’s not a solution, bob, that’s just you making the same mistakes again, that we have already been through.
“I did that, on March 5 at 6:57 AM”
Wherein DREMT erroneously declared equilibrium, which got him a desired result by circular reasoning.
AND, while he found the BP to be radiating 200 W to the GP, he failed to account for the 200 W radiated from the GP to the BP.
Again, why? Why ignore these facts?
Is it because they prove you wrong?
Yes, that is the only logical reason.
We’re sorry for your loss, again.
“I am done with this subthread, take it to the bottom if you have anything new to argue.”
Seems bob decided to “take it to the bottom” himself, anyway.
Down-thread we go:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-630476
So a record player with the motor on and the platter spinning, will have a record that only *appears* to rotate???
No, Tim, that is not what I am saying. Your example with the record player does not apply to the moon. The moon is not translating whilst rotating on its own axis, which is what you are driving at. The moon is simply rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, without rotating on its own axis.
This issue of rotation is one of semantics or, if you like, definition. It is like discussing speed. From which vantage point is speed or rotation being calculated/viewed. If I stand on the surface of the sun and focus my telescope on the moon (ignoring the earth’s presence) then I will observe a moon that rotates around its own axis once in every 28 days (of course the Earth will block my view half of the time).
So guys stop your bickering and get out of your own righteous bubble.
No, viewed from the sun the moon only rotates about the Earth/moon barycenter (“orbits”), and does not “rotate on its own axis”.
The Earth both “orbits” the sun/Earth barycenter and “rotates on its own axis”, the moon only “orbits”.
Chris, DREMT uses DREMT’s own silly definition of rotation on internal axis not the definition of rotation on internal axis by Merriam-Webster. One has to translate from DREMT speak into M-W English to understand DREMT’s own various unique physical descriptions.
The dictionary does not define “rotation on internal axis” as a complete phrase, it does however define the word “rotation”. According to that definition, the moon is in “rotation” about an external axis.
Yes, as well as M-W rotation about lunar internal axis. Both angular momentums are independent and nonzero.
“Yes, as well as M-W rotation about lunar internal axis.”
Wrong. If the moon were rotating about both an external and an internal axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
Like Clint R, DREMT can not grasp: If the moon were rotating about both an external axis orbit and an internal axis more than once per earthen orbit, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
“According to that definition, the moon is in ‘rotation’ about an external axis.”
And this is quite literally untrue.
DREMT knows that well, and he is simply lying here.
That is why it is not a debate, just an extended Troll.
No, Ball4. If the moon were rotating about both an external and an internal axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
Here is DREMT
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/#comment-622409
trying to make a point by quoting the definition of:
“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.”
He knows QUITE WELL that the all particles of the MOON are not moving on circular paths.
Yet here is KNOWINGLY making a FALSE and contradictory statement:
“According to that definition, the moon is in ‘rotation’ about an external axis.”
Thus DREMTs method of ‘debate’ is entirely dishonest.
DREMT: does not rotate on its own axis.
Not true. Imagine we drill a hole through the centre of the moon and stick a 3474 km long axis (diameter of the moon) through the hole and weld a flag on the top which points in the direction of the sun. While the moon is rotating around the earth in 28 days, it will also rotate around its own fixed axis (“fixed” meaning the flag remains pointing to the sun).
That is not what is meant by a “fixed axis”, Chris. Regardless, you are confusing the change in orientation the moon makes due to its orbital motion for rotation about its own axis, same exact mistake as always.
The IMAGINARY “change in orientation the moon makes due to its orbital motion” that DREMT declares.
@Nate,
I am flabbergasted at your position that an orbiting object does not change orientation naturally during its orbital progression?!?
That concept is beyond bizarre.
The forward motion of an orbital path is tangential to the orbital shape AT ALL POINTS OF THE ORBIT and the force of gravity keeps the object from escaping orbit. Assuming the object is traveling forward with its linear motion and had a defined front, like the space shuttle, if the orientation starting changing during the orbit (like the tail became the leading edge instead of the nose) then the orbit would be decaying or the object would have escape velocity
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/circles/Lesson-4/Circular-Motion-Principles-for-Satellites
Based on the forward velocity and downward gravitational forces (as shown in the diagram), the object has to maintain the same tangential orientation at any place in the orbital path.
I just don’t understand how you can hold this stance…
“The forward motion of an orbital path is tangential to the orbital shape AT ALL POINTS OF THE ORBIT and the force of gravity keeps the object from escaping orbit.”
Yes indeed. And that has no impact on its orientation.
Airplanes and footballs of course do align in flight, due to their shape and aerodynamics.
But cannonballs dont have a front or back. They don’t need to align with their path.
Newtons cannonball, fired from a mountain and goes into orbit, keeps its orientation fixed, as it was initially fired.
If you want its orientation to change, that requires a torque, and nothing is providing a torque on the cannonball.
If you are on the Sun, the only time you cannot see the moon is during a Total Lunar Eclipse. Although from the vantage point of the Sun, it is not called that.
The Earth is tiny compared to the orbit of the Moon around the Earth, so the idea that the Moon is blocked half the time is incorrect.
This is readily apparent at every full Moon, and in fact all the time, since it can be seen that the Sun is always illuminating the Moon, and so obviously there is a line of sight between the two.
The only exceptions are a New Moon, when one can easily infer that the Sun is still shining on the Moon and that we simply cannot see the illuminated side from the Earth, and during an eclipse, when it is readily apparent that the Moon has entered the shadow of the Earth. And only in the central cone of that shadow is the Moon actually completely hidden by the Earth from a hypothetical observer on the Sun.
Of course, during a Total Lunar Eclipse, the Moon is still visible from Earth, just not from the Sun.
It is darkened and reddened in appearance, because there is enough light diffracting through the atmosphere of the Earth (around the entire limb of the planet) to allow the Moon to be seen from a dark location on Earth. The Moon is seeing every sunrise and sunset on Earth, all at once.
That would be a great photograph, eh.
or better yet to be on the moon during a total lunar eclipse.
Although from the Moon, it would be a total solar eclipse.
We see nothing like that of course during a solar eclipse, since the moon has no atmosphere to diffract the Sun.
Actually, I take that back…a total lunar eclipse would also be called that from the Sun, if one keeps the same terminology used to describe a solar eclipse.
nicholas…”The Earth is tiny compared to the orbit of the Moon around the Earth, so the idea that the Moon is blocked half the time is incorrect”.
I was having a bad-hair day when I made that claim. I am not wrong, however, that the Moon does not rotate about a local axis.
When people are engaging in discussion, it is implicit that there is a mutual desire to communicate with one another.
In this endeavor, we employ language to express our thoughts so that we might transmit our thoughts to other human beings.
In that way, every discussion is a semantic one, and all words have to have a mutually understood definition in order for the endeavor of communication to have any purpose or hope of succeeding.
On the subject of astronomy in general, and celestial mechanics in particular, words such as “rotation” and “orbit” are precisely defined. No scientific discussion can have value when everyone adopts their own definition of words. And when people attempt to use the common everyday definitions of words to communicate scientific ideas, the exercise is bound to fail.
In everyday usage, many words used in the realm of science have many definitions, but these are worse than useless in a scientific discussion. Worse than useless because rather than allowing purposeful communication, they prevent it.
The “Moon does not rotate” faction of this discussion are not using the words “rotation” and “orbit” as they are understood to be defined in the realm of celestial mechanics.
In everyday usage, one might think of an orbit as a kind of rotation, or even to conflate the two types of motion.
That seems to be what is going on with this discussion.
“Rotation” in this context is distinct and separate from “orbit”.
Only by conflating the orbit and rotation of a celestial object can one assert that the Moon only rotates around a common barycenter, or any such language as that.
That type of motion is called orbit.
Rotation is different.
It is defined differently and is distinct from an orbit.
They cannot be conflated, or mushed together.
No one could do astronomy and succeed at getting the math to work out unless the reference frame is kept consistent.
It is impossible to think of the Moon as nonrotating, and then extend this paradigm outward to the Earth, the Sun, the other planets, and all of the various motions of each and of them all together.
So, yes, it is semantic. Everything involving language is semantics. Written communication is done using words, which must be defined. Or we might as well all be talking to ourselves.
Which is what anyone is doing when they adopt their own definitions of words and then tries to argue that the rest of the world is “wrong”.
I would like to hear someone describe the rotation and orbit of Venus in this “Moon does not rotate” paradigm, being that it has retrograde rotation that is once every ~243 days, and an orbital period that is once every ~225 days.
The reason for the necessity of a standard reference frame is mathematical as well as practical, especially in the space age.
When we launch a ship from earth into space, we commonly take advantage of the rotational velocity of the Earth to assist in the effort. If this is not taken into account, and done so consistently, nothing will be moving as we planned and no rendezvous will happen as we expect.
Calculations of angular momentum and inertia will be all wrong if one does not know that the Moon is rotating when one tries to land on it. And when taking off…fuggedaboudit.
Over large distances, tiny miscalculations have a giant effect.
So the moon not rotating is not only semantically incorrect, it is a useless paradigm that will have catastrophic practical implications if employed when trying to navigate the solar system.
https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287
“Revolution
It is not necessary for the axis of rotation to actually pass through the object in question. In some cases, the axis of rotation is outside of the object altogether. When that happens, the outer object is revolving around the axis of rotation. Examples of revolution would be a ball on the end of a string, or a planet going around a star. However, in the case of planets revolving around stars, the motion is also commonly referred to as an orbit.”
Written by some ninny writer.
One sentence in we have this gem of wrongness:
“The term “acceleration”, which comes from physics (as does velocity), refers to the rate of an object’s motion over time.”
No, it does not refer to that.
Anything else he writes can be similarly regarded as off the top of the head of someone who speaks carelessly, not concisely.
And again, he is speaking of common usage, not definitions.
Because it is very immediately evident he is not anyone who can be relied upon for definitions.
It is a tiresome and pointless exercise to try to make a point by finding some random writer and assigning them credence, let alone consider them an arbitrator.
In any case, you are simply repeating what I had already said. One difference though is that I wrote my own thoughts based on definitive material that I am well familiar with.
“And when people attempt to use the common everyday definitions of words to communicate scientific ideas, the exercise is bound to fail.
In everyday usage, many words used in the realm of science have many definitions, but these are worse than useless in a scientific discussion.”
As I said previously, I do not expect you to change your mind about anything.
But you might at least reply by speaking in your own words about something I said that is in dispute.
He is also speaking loosely and nonsensically when he says the word “comes from physics”.
Actually, it comes from Latin.
“First attested in the 1520s. Either from Latin accelerātus, perfect passive participle of accelerō (I accelerate, hasten), formed from ad + celerō (I hasten), which is from celer (quick) (see celerity), or back-formation from acceleration”
It is written by a professor of physics and astronomy.
Dremt conveniently ignores the parts of the article he doesn’t like, such as
“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.”
The “more precise” description contradicts the the previous statements.
He also conveniently ignores that his definition requires circular motion, while the moon moves in an ellipse.
And he conveniently ignores that textbooks disagree with him.
But sure, he can declare himself the winner based on appeal to his own authority. We well never stop him.
No Tim, the “more precise” (actually less precise in terms of what it actually describes) description does not contradict the previous statements. On this whole circular motion vs elliptical nonsense, I defer to ftop_t, as you know very well. Go and argue that with him.
There is no need to argue with ftop_t who illustrates the orbiting and spinning on its own axis nonzero radius object illuminated by the sun very well here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
My reply is a little further down, Ball4 (even though you are just trolling anyway).
DREMT. So you are arguing based on a simulation that …
1) Orbits the center of the ellipse, not one of the foci.
2) Moves at the wrong speeds around the orbit.
3) Does not keep one point facing toward the earth (like a ‘ball on a string would).
4) Also does not keep one point facing ahead (like a car on a track would).
While also arguing based on a definition of “rotate” that requires a circle.
hmmmmm
Tim, all ftop_t’s simulation was required to show was that an object could rotate around an external axis and do so in an elliptical path. It achieved that. He then went on to do another simulation demonstrating libration as a result of the elliptical path. I notice you avoid mentioning that one. As to your 3) and 4)…good. That was what you would have wanted it to show, right? Otherwise, you would have just complained that it was not moving like the moon.
That is not all it needs to do. The standard theory using classical mechanics explains all those things too. And classical mechanics accurately predicts the motions + predicts myriad other things in the universe. The ad hoc simulation is SO inferior to classical mechanics.
The standard theory is that an orbit is a rotation around an external axis, Tim. Hence why that professor of physics and astronomy defined it as such.
The professor was addressing the case of rotation where the axis of rotation is external to the object, having already addressed the case where the axis is internal.
A point the clown posse ignores.
And the parallel axis theorem, which they also ignore.
And the observed internal axis the Moon rotates around which causes the observed libration, which the clown posse also ignores.
The clown posse ignores a lot in order to keep to their fantasy that the Moon does not rotate on its own internal axis.
If you say so, bob.
DrEMPTY,
Usually when one says “If you say so”
It means agreement.
So either you agree the Moon rotates on its own axis or you are a liar.
Which is it?
It means there is no point talking to you. Think what you want.
“elliptical nonsense, I defer to ftop_t, as you know very well. Go and argue that with him.”
Nope, he has already admitted defeat, and worse YOU have already used definitions of Rotation that correctly require Circular motion.
You cannot have rotation be whatever you feel like at the moment.
“There is no need to argue with ftop_t who illustrates the orbiting and spinning on its own axis nonzero radius object illuminated by the sun very well here”
That is an illustration of an object that is just rotating about an external axis, and not rotating on its own axis, Ball4. You can even see that only the external axis rotation slider is moving, in order to make that happen.
No need to look at the slider DREMT, the illustration demo. will teach you the correct motion of the object rotating on its own axis once per external axis orbit in the sunlight, ftop_t gets it right.
The illustration demo. teaches you the correct motion of the object not rotating on its own axis whilst orbiting the external axis in the sunlight, ftop_t did indeed get it right.
6:28am: Only according to DREMT’s unique language defn. of rotation in DREMTnese not according Merriam-Webster’s defn. of rotation where the object orbiting an external axis undergoes spinning once on its own internal axis per orbit: “one complete turn; the angular displacement required to return a rotating body or figure to its original orientation”.
In DREMTnese on the internal axis the non-spinning object per orbit undergoes: “zero complete turns; the angular displacement required to keep a rotating body or figure in its original orientation.”
Readers here simply need to translate from DREMTnese into M-W English to understand the correct physics of momentum as analyzed by Tesla and demonstrated by ftop_t. DREMT is merely revealing his local position observing from the accelerated frame attached to the object.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
No, Ball4, the object makes “one complete turn; the angular displacement required to return a rotating body or figure to its original orientation” about an external axis only.
That’s true for the external orbital axis rotation through the center point; readers here only have to translate from DREMTnese writing location for internal axis rotation to proper M-W language.
Ball4, the object is not rotating about both an external and an internal axis. Ftop_t, Tesla, and even some of those on your own side of the argument would agree with me on that.
7:52am: Only using DREMTnese, once readers correctly translate to proper Merriam-Webster English, the actual internal axis angular momentum physics becomes apparent as ftop_t demonstrates here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
Ball4, you keep linking to the same thing, which is an illustration of an object that is just rotating about an external axis, and not rotating on its own axis. You can even see that only the external axis rotation slider is moving, in order to make that happen. I wonder…would it be possible for you to stop trolling?
@Ball4,
Quit misrepresenting what I have presented.
As I have shown:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/#comment-626103
This is an object rotating around an internal axis
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/nei3bjhmij
ONE (1) axis of rotation…INTERNAL
Now I drag the axis to (0,0)
This is the same object rotating around the SAME axis, but the axis is now external
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/k2g7fasuli
ONE (1) axis of rotation…EXTERNAL
It is literally the EXACT SAME point that has been dragged to a new location
TWO (2) axis of rotation (INTERNAL and EXTERNAL) looks like this
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/8eozawyo1w
DON’T GET IT WRONG AGAIN
ftop_t, you have already demonstrated for the Earth – Moon – Sun system, TWO (2) axes of rotation (INTERNAL and EXTERNAL) look like this:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
The orbiting object rotates once on its own internal axis per orbit of the external axis. 2 axes! 2 different angular momentums! Basic physics.
Merriam-Webster on rotationr: “one complete turn : the angular displacement required to return a rotating body or figure to its original orientation”
Ball4, you were asked not to get it wrong again, but have immediately done so. Perhaps it is time for you to stop trolling?
Perhaps it is time for DREMT to realize for the Earth – Moon – Sun system, TWO (2) axes of rotation (INTERNAL and EXTERNAL) look like this demo.:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
The object in that link is not rotating about both an external and an internal axis.
Only in DREMTnese. In Merriam-Webster English, the orbiting object rotates once on its own internal axis per orbit of the external axis. 2 axes! 2 different angular momentums! Basic physics.
Ball4, the object in that link is not rotating about both an external and an internal axis.
With USA48 at -0.66, Arctic at 0.07, and knowing how cold Siberia has been, it’s a little amazing the NH was so high.
Too much hot air from Europe?
I am in Europe, and it was freezing over February. The numbers are the numbers I suppose, but it was definitely a lot colder than normal.
Interesting, Dave.
Yeah he lives in Stockholm
Dave
Where exactly do you live?
What is ‘normal’ in your region?
In Germany we had a few cold weeks with a lot of snow here and there, all that resulting from
– a cold front coming from NNE, due to polar vortex weakening (that happens a few times per decade);
– a very warm front coming from the Sahara.
In 2010, it was way colder than this year, but even that winter was nothing compared with 1956, 1941, 1963, 1979, 1986!
Please tell us everything!
J.-P. D.
Mostly meteorologists do not speak about normal temps, but average ones.
It is “normal” for some Winters to be colder than others.
That is why climate has always been defined as the average of a longish period…most systems define climate as the 30 year average of weather in a given location.
There would be no need to do that if years did not vary considerably.
Colder than average Winters are normal.
So are warmer than average ones.
This is one reason we have to write stuff down…memory is notoriously unreliable.
In Philly, where I was born and grew up, it often does not snow, but sometimes, it snows a lot.
One time in the 1960s, my oldest brother and father were working on the roof of our house for a weekend in December.
It was so warm my brother took off his shirt all day.
He got the worst sunburn I have ever seen on a human being.
A few years later, it was a blizzard on that same weekend.
More data this month supporting a luke warm climate sensitivity to CO2. In the paper below the new high ECS climate models are unable to reconstruct cold climate of the past and show sensitivity is to high from clouds in these models. I know Dr. Roy previously pointed out his issues with the new models. He felt ECS was to high for CO2 based on the UAH data being on the low end of existing models and unexplainable how you increases predicted ECS in new models, but now it seems science has supported his concerns in this paper.
I’m sure the CNN headline- “new climate models are crap- defund the biased scientists behind them” will be coming soon, and I am holding my breath waiting!
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2020GL091220
“More data this month supporting a luke warm climate sensitivity to CO2.”
Actually, those results come from running climate simulations, more commonly known as ‘models’. There’s very little in the way of hard data in that report.
See if I can comment here to Barry.
I agree- the support for luke warm is from the UAH L Trop data. The models generally run hot.
By amazing coincidence you have picked the data set with the lowest overall warming trend to corroborate your point.
I think and ECS of right around zero is pretty lukewarm. Climate science uses the wrong physical model of our climate and hence gets wrong answers to just about everything.
This paper is not supporting a luke warm climate sensitivity. What it is saying is that the CAM6 physics specifically is problematic. CAM6 was developed to approximate the CMIP6 physics so that an assessment of the CMIP6 model could be applied to the LGM via the CESM model as a means of seeing how well it performs. It doesn’t perform so well. This is possibly related to how CAM6 (and by implication CMIP6) handles shortwave cloud feedbacks. This paper does not find fault with CAM5 (and by implication CMIP5) though. What they are effectively challenging is CMIP6’s higher ECS. They are not challenging CMIP5’s ECS. In fact, if anything the paper seems to support CMIP5’s ECS. And while CMIP5’s ECS is lower than CMIP6’s ECS I definitely would not categorize it as a “luke warm” sensitivity since it is still above 3C.
Previous comment didn’t make it let me try again.
I agree with your overview of the paper bdgwx. Your description of the paper is accurate. I didn’t intend to say anything otherwise.
The
Aaron,
People complain here about the problems with the temperature record of the last century, and certainly the prior millenium.
But you seem fine with using
‘paleoclimate simulations of the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM)’
as definitive evidence to support your POV?
Nate:
Not a true assumption. I am not fine with “paleoclimate simulations of the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM)”.
I think the ice data from oxygen isotopes and CO2 from bubbles (you have to assume time averaging) is usable, and is clearly showing that this warm event is nothing special in the recent past. There were warmer conditions in Greenland many times in the past (https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2011GL049444), which is confirmed by the Viking artifacts they find as ice recedes showing warmer conditions. Ice also shows that this event is not even recorded yet (have not lost the Ice to shift the isotopes) and this could have happened many times in the past with no record. Until we get isotopic evidence I don’t think it is valid to “attach” thermometer data to the end of the record and assume they are saying the same thing.
The paper you highlighted as meriting a CNN headline doesnt seem to have anything to do with that. It is all about a very Cold period, the Glacial Maximum. And relies on the temperature proxies for that period. So it is just one more paper, of many, estimating ECS. Not the last word, nor a headline.
Also Greenland is not the globe.
Greenland is like the canary in the coal mine.
It warms first and fastest during interglacial cycles, when June solar insolation reaches a maximum at Greenland’s latitude.
It cools the most during glacial cycles.
It responds more strongly to fluctuations in the AMOC than the rest of the World.
The AMOC seems to be slowing down in response to AGW, with various implications for future regional climates.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-021-00699-z
The climate debate has two sides.
And they are very easy to explain:
(1) Logical, sensible, intelligent people: Using data, and 45 years of experience LIVING with 100% good news global warming. They know our planet has had large climate changes over the past 4.5 billion years, 100% from natural causes.
Sources of conclusions:
Real climate science, and up to 45 years of personal experience living with global warming
Typical scientist:
Richard Lindzen, Ph.D.
.
.
.
(2) Climate hustlers, green energy zealots, and other lunatics who believe CO2 is the devil in the sky!
— Never mind 100% good news global warming in the PAST 45 years — FUTURE global warming will be completely different — 100% bad news! Because we say so.
— Never mind 4.5 billion years of climate change with 100% natural causes — FUTURE climate change will be 100% man made. Because we say so.
Sources of conclusions:
Computer games that we program to predict a coming climate crisis, and because we are big shot government bureaucrats, and we say so.
Typical “independent scientists”:
Perfesser Al “the climate blimp” Gore
Perfesser Greta “thundering” Thunberg
Perfesser Alexandria “occasionally coherent” Cortez
“45 years personal experience’ in Michigan, I believe, do not weigh much on the scales of science.
Its what we call ‘argument by anecdote’, and is often worse than no data at all.
“Never mind 100% good news global warming ”
Again a subjective, local POV…worthless to science and anyone living beyond your region.
“Never mind 4.5 billion years of climate change with 100% natural causes”
Again, the logical fallacy that if something happens by one mechanism, that is proof that it doesnt also happen by another mechanism.
Lame!
“Computer games that we program to predict” weather and other things turn out to be extremely useful to society.
Thus labelling such methods ‘games’ is ignorant.
Approximately seven billion people, approximately, have elived with ACTUAL global warming, for up to 45 years.
Our ACTUAL experience with REAL global warming is one thousand times more useful than wild guess predictions of coming a FUTURE global warming.
Especially predictions that are COMPLETELY different than past global warming, with no explanation of why they would be different.
So, we have been hearing about a coming climate crisis ( now a climate emergency) every year. for the past 50 years.
climate crisis?
ANSWER:
Exactly where it has ALWAYS been, in overactive leftist imaginiation, like yours.
We’ve had pleasant, mild warming since the 1970s, mainly affecting colder climates. there is no logical reason to believe future warming would be different, much less completely different.
A collection of anecdotes, by the way,is called a field study,
Experiences with reality are meaningful.
Wild guess, always wrong, climate fantasy predictions are not.
If you think I am wrong about prior warming, since the 1970s, provide a list of specific people and/or locations that were harmed by that harmless warming.
Computer games are those that predict more more than double the actual global warming, om average, with NO improvement of accuracy in over three decades of model “refining”.
If you need a true definition of “ignorant”, look in a mirror.
Dr. Spencer, would you publish the graphics for the S Hemishere vs N Hemishere vs the Arctic and start a conversation about what is causing the differential? How ask the question how does CO2, which is equal in all regions, the there are wildly different temperature trends.
The answer is pretty simple as one graph clearly demonstrates. CO2 does not drive climate, the oceans do.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3nh/from:1997/to/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1997/to/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1997.5/to:2015/trend/plot/none
Thanks Richard, here is even a better graphic from the RSS Site:
http://images.remss.com/figures/climate/temperature_and_vapor_trop20_V4.png
Move along, more along, nothing to see here.
Why do people remove data from linear trends?
Here it is without cherry-picking – just all the data.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3nh/from:1997/to/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1997/to/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1997.5/trend
Warming.
Richard, you are an out and out cherry-picker. “Oooh look. If I stops this trend 6 years ago it’s cooling!”
Barry, the part of that chart that is important is the divergence between the SH and NH. This cannot be due to CO2 since CO2 is well mixed across the entire planet.
The trend line was left over and I should have removed it.
“Barry, the part of that chart that is important is the divergence between the SH and NH. This cannot be due to CO2 since CO2 is well mixed across the entire planet.”
YaHoo!!!! Finally someone gets it. Sanity has returned!!! Thank you Richard!!!
Land has warmed faster than sea surface, globally. That’s because the ocean has greater thermal inertia than the air, not because CO2 is different over land than water.
The Southern Hemisphere has a giant perennial ice cube at the bottom of the world and half the landmass of the Northern hemisphere.
If the Earth had a symmetrical topography your argument would be valid.
It’s SST
Barry, the land warming you see is due to UHI being smeared over the land. Can’t do that with the oceans which is why they track the satellite data so well.
Also, land does not buffer heat. It gives up its daily solar energy every night. Oceans buffer some heat so they are giving up some daily heat and some buffered heart on a daily basis. That is why satellites track the oceans with a lag.
The bottom line is the CO2 cannot warm the land because it cools every night and CO2 can’t warm the oceans because of evaporation. That’s right, CO2 cannot heat either one.
“The bottom line is the CO2 cannot warm the land because it cools every night..” except when the weather report shows warming overnight. You are mistaking weather for climate.
What is making the entire ocean warm?
Bdgwx, the oceans are warming as part of a long term trend that is very likely driven by salinity increases.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02846-4/figures/2
The natural increase in salinity increase has likely been further enhanced by humans. This is especially true for the Atlantic basin. Water treatment, farming, diet, etc.
“the oceans are warming as part of a long term trend that is very likely driven by salinity increases”
Seriously?!
This is just as famously stupid as the idea that climate is driven by “galaxy fingers”. !!!
The queue of nut cases posting here gets longer.
First…I have to commend you on posting a actual real evidence. That always gets my attention.
Second…salinity is NOT a source of energy/heat.
Third…the paper you posted does not agree with your hypothesis. In fact, they propose anthroprogenic global warming is one cause of the changing ocean circulations that contribute to salinity changes.
Studentb, I suggest you learn a little physics next time before making such a complete fool out of yourself. A more saline ocean will reduce evaporation. Hence, more energy is retained and oceans will naturally maintain a higher temperature. No energy is produced, the energy from the sun is just buffered up more.
Interestingly, a more saline ocean will also hold less CO2 hence outgassing more as it warms.
Real science and not the nonsense coming out of the climate religion.
Bdgwx, the paper probably could never have gotten published without bowing down to the climate priests. However, I really don’t care what words they use when the data clearly supports my hypothesis. Salinity and the temperature of the proxies track very nicely over a couple of millennia.
RM,
So you took an evidence based approach when you thought it supported your hypothesis and now you’re dismissing it after you learned that it not only does not support your hypothesis, but supports the opposite? That’s not a very skeptical position.
“What is making the entire ocean warm?”
Yahoo!!! More sanity. What warms the Oceans? Certainly NOT CO2. CO2 only absorbs and re-radiates 13 to 18µ LWIR. 13 to 18µ LWIR does not penetrate or warm H2O. 13 to 18µ LWIR is very very very low energy radiation. Visible radiation warms the oceans. Fewer clouds over the oceans will result in warming. Have we had fewer clouds?
There has been a large increase in heat holding water vapor over the oceans. Why? Most likely more visible radiation has been reaching the oceans and causing evaporation.
http://images.remss.com/figures/climate/temperature_and_vapor_trop20_V4.png
Water definitely takes up IR radiation. In fact, water so greedily takes it up that nearly all of it is absorbed on the skin. And here is a good paper that describes the microphysics of IR radiations ability to warm the ocean.
https://tinyurl.com/yuuub55n
About what was expected given the lack of change in the November 2020 SSTs. For those disappointed they didn’t see a drop this month you can look forward to March. The December 2020 SSTs had a big drop. Look for March UAH to be right around zero.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to/plot/uah6/from:1979/to/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to/offset:-0.35/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to/offset:-0.35/trend
Well, I’m glad you tell us the perfect prediction – after the numbers came out
I told you why which follows what I also said last month. The lag is obvious in the graph if you look closely. However, the range is always + or – .1 so making an accurate prediction is impossible.
What supergenius Richard M repeatedly fails to understand is that the correlation between HaddSST3 and UAH6.0 Globe could very well interpreted as a cooling bias in UAH’s LT evaluation.
And that wouldn’t be the first time. You just need to review those critiques made since 1979 which led to changes by the UAH team.
J.-P. D.
Bind, only seems that way if you are living in denial of basic logic. It “could” also mean all the surface data sets are infected with UHI and data manipulation, that oceans really due drive the climate and CO2 has no warming abilities.
Now what might help us with those “could”s? Oh yeah, the lag in UAH vs. SSTs. It’s beyond obvious what is driving the climate. UAH is simply a lagging measure of the energy released by the oceans. That is the energy that determines the climate.
Now check the graph I posted earlier of the hemisphere differences. Yup, once again the oceans are in control.
Why do you deny simple logic?
Sorry, Richard M: this is no answer to what I wrote.
It is no more than the nth repetition of what you guess.
And… what the heck does this poor CO2, and his ‘no warming abilities’ have to do here?
J.-P. D.
It was a direct and obvious answer to your science denial. You’ve become a religious follower and hence unable to process real science which goes against your “faith”.
” Youve become a religious follower… ”
This, Richard M, proves us how far you are ready to discredit and denigrate people whose meaning differs from yours.
What you don’t understand is the fact that you might be much more a religious follower than I could ever become.
You are, as it seems, blind on one eye.
Perfect!
J.-P. D.
Bind, let me know when you provide some science. Whether you know it or not, real science does not support your views, hence they are religious in nature.
Richard M
“About what was expected …”
So you are saying that for negative ENSO anomalies, it is now expected that global temperatures will be back to the trend line. That means that for zero ENSO anomalies you would expect global temperatures to be above the trend line. In other words, you are saying that global warming has accelerated.
Rob, no I’m saying that UAH follows the ocean SSTs with a lag of about 3 months. This was expected for the reason I specified. The ocean SSTs were flat 3 months ago.
Now, the reasons for that are up to many interpretations but we already know the SSTs saw a major drop in December and another drop in January. Certainly does not look like any acceleration in warming.
If you are talking about global SST’s, this satellite data shows a rise from December to January. The surface data shows a steady SST since mid-December.
I’ll provide you the link once again.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1979/to/plot/uah6/from:1979/to/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to/offset:-0.35/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to/offset:-0.35/trend
Here is the data:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/data/HadSST.3.1.1.0/diagnostics/HadSST.3.1.1.0_monthly_globe_ts.txt
So hardly any change then according to THAT data set.
Rob, there are no big changes anywhere. The entire climate scare is based on changes of tenths of a degree. I’m simply showing the small changes in the satellite data track the small changes in the ocean SST data with a lag.
Richard M said: About what was expected
Hmm…given the La Nina I was expecting an excursion of at least 0.2 C below the trendline for Feb. The trendline currently sits at +0.21C. Feb actually came in at +0.20C.
I would not be foolish enough to extrapolate anything from just one month, but if we do finish this year without a 0.00C monthly anomaly then we’ll have to at least entertain the possibility that the warming has accelerated.
Bdgwx, I specified exactly why it was expected. The SSTs which predict UAH had a pause 3 months ago. You’re putting too much emphasis on one month. The trend is still downward as will be likely next month given the large drop in SSTs in December.
Here’s another informative chart.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2014/to/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2014/to/trend
This shows exactly why we’ve been warm over the past 7 years. All of it was driven by the oceans. We are now heading for a cooler year. If La Nina continues through the summer then pushing global warming is going to be difficult. However, since La Nina usually means more Atlantic hurricanes we know where the propagandists will be focusing their attention.
Just to remind ourselves of some of Richard M’s Tarot card readings last year
Richard M says:
April 1, 2020 at 10:21 AM
I still expect a drop over those next few month until we get back to the 21st century baseline of around .15 later this summer.
Richard M says:
June 3, 2020 at 7:59 AM.
Following this thinking both June and July will drop back to Apr levels and then August will start to pick up on the end of the El Nino.
Richard M says:
July 2, 2020 at 2:57 PM
June temperatures are still affected by the recent El Nino and the 3-4 month lag associated with satellites/ENSO. So will July. The real story will unfold come August.
Galaxie500
Thanks.
J.-P. D.
Galaxie500, you left out the quote where I pointed out I was likely wrong on the lag time.
I may still be wrong on the lag time.
The problem comes from longer duration El Nino events. They have more time to pump warm water across the surface. As a result it takes long for them to cool.
However, we are still following the path I predicted. It easier to see if you just look at recent data.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2015/to/offset:-0.3/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2015/to:2020.75/trend/offset:-0.3/plot/uah6/from:2015/to/plot/uah6/from:2015.33/to/trend
From looking more closely it now appears a lag of 6 months, maybe a little longer, is what we currently are seeing.
SO +.36C above old data averages.
And if the March UAH is higher than February?
It won’t be. March will follow the December 2020 SSTs which dropped considerably.
Richard M, I just looked at the SST and UAH data for the past 6 years. To me, it looks more like a six month delay for UAH rather than a 3 month delay. If thats true, it means that the UAH peak that we are seeing now could be correlated with the SST peak from August. The good news is that the SST plunges after August, so It would seem reasonable to guess that UAH should start plunging as well.
Gregory J,
It does appear 6 months is a better match. There’s also more NH warming during its winter which interferes with the trends to a certain degree. But, I think your prediction is likely better than mine. I should have been looking closer.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2015/to/offset:-0.3/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2015/to:2020.75/trend/offset:-0.3/plot/uah6/from:2015/to/plot/uah6/from:2015.33/to/trend
If the March UAH is higher than February it will be time to pack the picnic basket and get to high ground to celebrate the end of the earth as we know it.
I love it when people make predictions…
“March will follow the December 2020 SSTs which dropped considerably.”
Place your bets. I doubt Richard will allow anyone else to quantify “considerably.” Perhaps he will do that himself before the obese diva warbles.
barry
Please have a look at the ‘considerable drop’ in the Dec 20 SSTs:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/data/HadSST.3.1.1.0/diagnostics/HadSST.3.1.1.0_monthly_globe_ts.txt
I’m heavily impressed, to say the least.
J.-P. D.
I was likely wrong on that prediction even if it pans out. It appears the lag currently is more like 6 maybe 7 months. My bad. This graph shows it better.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2015/to/offset:-0.3/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2015/to:2020.75/trend/offset:-0.3/plot/uah6/from:2015/to/plot/uah6/from:2015.33/to/trend
My guess is longer running El Nino events get more warm water spread out over the Pacific which then takes longer to get removed. If that is the case then it will take a longer running La Nina event to get any serious cooling.
And, when I way warming and cooling I am referring to the atmosphere here. El Nino events really are the ocean cooling events and La Nina events are ocean warming events.
Troposphere temperature in the Arctic dropped after the SSW.
https://i.ibb.co/8jPN1Cc/hgt-ao-cdas.gif
The temperature above the 60th parallel.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_JFM_NH_2021.png
The polar vortex in the upper stratosphere recovered in the second half of February.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_UGRD_ANOM_JFM_NH_2021.png
Too much hot air from politicians
Creighton SCHLEBACH
Could you develop a little bit?
J.-P. D.
Sunspots in this cycle show weak magnetic activity. Only single C-class flares appear, so UV radiation decreases.
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png
The low surface temperature of the central equatorial Pacific persists.
https://i.ibb.co/55J1wVp/gfs-nh-sat4-sstanom-1-day.png
I think we are now at the end of the global warming trend.
Sea surface temperatures, increased geological activity ,weak solar /geo magnetic fields are going to start to exert influence upon the climatic system. Finally , or at least it looks that way.
This decade will be decisive one way or the other.
Salvatore
” This decade will be decisive one way or the other. ”
This is exactly what you told us in… 2011.
Mille grazie!
J.-P. D.
That is true again I am not good enough to get it that exact. I say if it came within 50 years of 2011 it would be fantastic.
Salvatore
” I say if it came within 50 years of 2011 it would be fantastic. ”
Sal, this is not the first time I ask you: what would be then ‘fantastic’?
For example, that excessive ice sheet and sea ice melt in the Northwestern Atlantic lead to
– excessive loss of salinity, and thus to
– a weakening of the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation, and hence to
– a retreat of the Gulf Stream away from our warm Western Europe, with as consequence Siberian winters down to Andalucia and Morocco?
I’m over 70, and until that happens I’ll be dead since quite a while.
But that is no reason for me to wish such a future to those who will follow us.
Buona notte
J.-P. D.
Prediction wise.
Climate real science rule #1
Never predict the future climate because you will be wrong
Climate junk science rule #1
Always predict the future climate, always claim a climate crisis is coming, and repeat the prediction every year, no matter what happens
Rule number 1 is a joke.
I predict that the Southern Hemisphere will be warmer for the 3 months December to February then the 3 months June to August.
Not just next year, but every year for the next century at least.
My prediction is assured to be correct.
“Never predict the future climate because you will be wrong”
Nope, not so.
If there was some kind of award for d-u-m-b replies, you would win it for that one.
Thanks for the report, Roy. We appreciate it as always.
For the next five days, the Icelandic high will direct Arctic air into central Europe. The pressure over Iceland now reaches 1040 hPa.
Dear Roy,
I observed a strong difference between T anomaly estimates at the surphace and UAH data for february…perhaps about 0.25 °C colder at the surphace…
http://climatlas.com/temperature/jra55_temperature.php
Have you any idea about that?
Thank you in advance.
Sergio
Sergio Musmeci
If we look at
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XzSBNDpP_CZvEMRenMB85frn23GCSOkG/view
we see that
– the evaluation gives 0.13 C for February 2021, i.e. 0.07 C lower than UAH6.0 LT;
but also that
– the evaluation anomalies are wrt the mean of 1981-2010, whereas those of UAH are now wrt the mean of 1991-2020.
If we now consider that Feb 2020 wrt 81-10 differs from Feb 2020 wrt 91-20 by +0.17 C, we then should add 0.17 C to the UAH anomaly for Feb 2021, giving 0.37 C.
That indeed gives 0.24 C difference, quite near to your 0.25 C.
I think the best will be to wait until Mr Maue moves to the newer reference period.
Btw, please look at January 2021: the 1981-2010 anomaly for UAH gives 0.27 C, exactly the same value as that given by Maue.
But… look at the absolute values, differing by a lot less.
My conclusion: Cosa c'è in un solo mese?
J.-P. D.
What do all you climate experts have to say about all the statements in the media following the bitter cold snap in NA that the cold was caused by “climate change”?
Real climate experts know what’s going on. They know that stratospheric intrusions in winter depend on the state of the polar vortex in the stratosphere. Man does not control the stratosphere unless he uses nuclear weapons in the ozone zone above the pole. Then significant changes in the chemistry of the stratosphere will occur.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/
I’m not convinced.
ren says:
February 3, 2021 at 2:04 PM
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 says:
February 4, 2021 at 12:38 AM
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
You can check out my comments.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-background-articles/
Tom tucker
What media tell mostly is worth nothing.
The sudden stratospheric warmth (SSW) above Siberia was the cause for the cold snap in NA in 2021. In Europe we got a tiny bit of it.
SSW’s are known to occur some times per decade.
The last one in the NH was in 2019, with e.g. Chicago temps at -30 C for 2 days at the end of January. Texas said: So what?
Should we in the near future experience a temporal SSW increase, say every year: then we’ll have to feel concerned, and to search for the cause of that.
J.-P. D.
Were there many statements in the media saying the cold snap was because of global warming?
There’s this:
But I believe that the odds are that as a result of global warming we can expect to see more of this pattern of extreme cold in the mid latitudes… Dr. John Holdren
Yes, that’s a theory. The video is 6 years old.
I’m asking if there were many articles about the recent cold snap attributing it to global warming. In response to this.
“What do all you climate experts have to say about all the statements in the media following the bitter cold snap in NA that the cold was caused by ‘climate change’?”
There have been a few posts here already on the slow, wavy jet stream thing. I’m skeptical that many articles if any said that global warming definitely caused the recent cold snap.
The video is 6 years old.
So what?
That’s right, That You Tube from 2014 isn’t a media article, but is rather straight from the horses mouth.
What’s going on is that for nearly everything negative in the world, you can find media or climate “science” that says it’s caused by or is causing “Global Warming”, “Climate Change”, “The Climate Crisis” or what ever else they care calling it these days.
“So what?”
The comment I’m replying to is about <b<RECENT news articles.
This comment:
“What do all you climate experts have to say about all the statements in the media following the bitter cold snap in NA that the cold was caused by ‘climate change’?”
I didn’t set the topic, I’m just replying to it.
You’re not. You’re grinding your own axe and I have zero interest in humouring the diversion.
One comment I saw said something to the effect that the prior large melting of the Arctic ice resulted in absorbtion of energy and the drop in temperature. In an interview Bill Gates said that it was the result of changes to the Jet Stream caused by Global Warming. The things I’ve seen are mostly one sentence comments included in stories about the cold in Texas,etc.
So you want recent.
DW,Com
How global warming can cause Europe’s harsh winter weather
In fact, the effects of global warming may even have favored the extremely cold temperature
USA Today
Some scientists but not all say there could be a connection between global warming and the wandering polar vortex: The theory is that when weird warmth invades the Arctic, some of the cold that’s supposed to stay up there including the vortex sloshes down south into North America and Europe
FaceBook
Meteorologist Cory Reppenhagen
Cold Snaps caused by Climate Change
What you have zero interest in is knowing that your side of the coin blames every thing it can on “Climate Change”
That was just from the first page on a google search.
Now you’re on topic, Steve.
2 articles found in 2 different countries, and one…. facebook post?
Ignoring social media, the 2 news articles say that the cold snap could be a result of global warming, alluding to the jet stream theory.
“In fact, the effects of global warming may even have favored the extremely cold temperature…”
“Some scientists but not all say there could be a connection between global warming and the wandering polar vortex..”
This is not “statements in the media following the bitter cold snap in NA that the cold was caused by ‘climate change’.”
If we include the facebook post, that one also talks about the jet stream theory as a possible, not definite contributor to the cold snap.
Here’s another article from Forbes I found. It articulates what I think of the matter very well.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2021/02/19/3-things-people-get-wrong-about-the-polar-vortex-and-climate-change/?sh=a4ee3c1426e7
From the article:
“The final thing that I notice is something very counterintuitive to many people. You can have extreme cold in one part of the world and warm anomalies (difference from normal) elsewhere. The map below shows temperature anomalies as of February 21, 2021. The colder air in the middle of the United States is evident. However, warm anomalies are noticeable in extreme polar regions as well as parts of Asia. As a climate scientist and communicator, it is a constant struggle to shake people out their narrow perspective that what happens in their little corner of the world is indeed local not global.”
You’d think that people who have been commenting on this blog for years would understand this, but apparently they aren’t equipped, for whatever reason, to comprehend.
Most of the positive anomalies appear at the mid latitudes around the subtropical highs in the NH and at the base of the Ferrell Cells in the Southern Hemisphere. Would be nice to know more about why patterns like this emerge.
RWT,
this is likely due to ocean cycles. The PDO and AMO have been in there positive cycles for several years now. It will be interesting to see if the pattern changes when they go negative.
Since “climate change” is just another name for global warming; what i want to know is how can warming of the planet possibly cause a serious cold period.
tom tucker
Only people observing the atmosphere since decades can tell us that.
As a layman, I only can imagine a scenario.
Suppose that somewhere in Siberia (a very cold, but steadily warming corner) an extreme convection stream manages to bypass the Tropopause, thus entering the lower stratosphere and unduly warming it.
The result might be that the circumpolar, normally perfectly circular jet stream turning around the North Pole gets disturbed, and becomes wavy; some corners become unusually warm, others unusually cold.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/February_12-19%2C_2021_map_of_hours_at_or_under_freezing_temperatures.png
J.-P. D.
Have you never experienced a cool day in Summer or a warm day in Winter?
Climate is not weather. Climate is the average of weather. Weather still happens when the climate changes.
“climate change” and “global warming” are not synonymous.
Global Warming – is the long term secular warming of land, ocean, air, and ice on a global scale.
Climate Change – is the change in various aspects of the climate system including precipitation patterns, temperature patterns, droughts, hurricanes, growing seasons, etc. on local and regional scales as a result of global warming.
Global warming is hypothesized to make the jet stream wavier. The technical jargon here is quasi-resonant amplification of planetary waves. Depending on where and how the Rossby waves resonate certain regions may experience larger swings in temperature. In addition polar amplification is hypothesized to create WACCy (Warm Arctic Cold Continent) configurations in which anomalously warm conditions in the Arctic region displaces cold air further down the latitudes. The NH is still warmer overall in both scenarios. It is just that the configuration of the warm and cold pools has changed.
tom…”Since climate change is just another name for global warming; what i want to know is how can warming of the planet possibly cause a serious cold period”.
‘Climate change’, as the phrase is currently employed, is nothing more than a politically-correct term aimed at scaring people into thinking we have a problem. It makes no sense, especially when it is used to infer that those who disagree with the theory are climate deniers.
There are a lot of idiots out there spreading nonsense and propaganda in the name of science when in fact, they mean climate model theory, which is not a science. A science has to be based on the scientific method and unvalidated climate models cannot meet the requirements of the scientific method.
“what i want to know is how can warming of the planet possibly cause a serious cold period.”
Regionally, yes, that is one prediction.
Nice article about one of the mechanisms for a possible cooling/drying of N. Atlantic and N. Europe, and other changes.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-021-00699-z
Tom,
As other have indicated, the claims are nothing but scare tactics and excuses from the climate pseudo-religion. It has nothing to do with science and they are using the fact that most people are science illiterates to push this propaganda.
In the 1970s there was one weak solar cycle and winters were harsh. Now we have another very weak solar cycle. The lower the solar activity the stronger the stratospheric intrusions in North America. La Nina only amplifies them.
https://i.ibb.co/VQjy96J/international-sunspot-nu.png
ren, do you think the cooling trend will be multi-decadal?
Yes, the cooling trend will be multi-decadal because the solar magnetic cycle lasts 22 years.
The jet stream will now pull Arctic air into Central Europe, where winter will return for a few days.
https://i.ibb.co/zSrBbCn/Screenshot-2.png
ren…”The lower the solar activity the stronger the stratospheric intrusions in North America. La Nina only amplifies them.”
Thanks, ren.
According to UAH data, the Tropics are continuing its downward temperature trend since last September. I think it would be safe to say that we have at least a short-term cooling trend coming up.
I hope the cooling trend will be short. Because a long-term cooling trend will be bad for all of us WX-wise! If it is a longer-term cooling trend, maybe it will be something like the 1960s and 1970s.
Rob Mitchell
Could you please explain why you always keep fixated on little, most recent drops?
What about looking back, and comparing bigger drops some years ago?
https://tinyurl.com/2h5w8uy5
Look at the Tropics starting with May 2010, and you will see what a real La Nina is…
J.-P. D.
binny…”Could you please explain why you always keep fixated on little, most recent drops?”
You might try explaining why you were so fixated on the warmer temperatures from 2016 till near-present.
Well Bindi, the real La Nina just might be underway. ren thinks we are in for a multi-decadal cooling trend. I hope he is wrong.
Rob Mitchell
” … the real La Nina just might be underway. ”
If it was we would see that right now.
But it looks like this:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
*
” ren thinks we are in for a multi-decadal cooling trend. ”
Well I can only tell you: he is certainly wrong.
Because for example his forecasts for a strong winter in Europe were… ALL WRONG.
All we had was more snow than in the ten years before, due to the collision between a cold front from the polar region and a warm front from the Sahara.
But in 2010 we had much more snow than this year, and above all it was a LOT colder (even if ‘warm’ compared with e.g. 1956, I remember the February of that year).
Thus when I see ren forecasting MULTIDECADAL processes… I get a big laugh.
J.-P. D.
From the Ignoramus naming others ‘a cheating SOB’
” You might try explaining why you were so fixated on the warmer temperatures from 2016 till near-present. ”
Oh is that amusing!
What about a look at
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-628362
J.-P. D.
Although the state of Texas in the United states got hit hard, the east coast has been moderate. It has not seen the massive cold.
2021 really looked like a massive snow year for the eastern side of North Carolina.
Installing a diesel fuel parking heater that runs off 12 volts to warm some of the house. After the heating failed and the city supply pipes froze residents did not drain the indoor plumbing. Now plumbers drive hundreds of miles to aide in the near 24×7 repairs.
I believe most cities have the water running again without any boil first precautions.
Lesson learned:
TechnoCaveman
” Although the state of Texas in the United states got hit hard, the east coast has been moderate. It has not seen the massive cold. ”
Exactly…
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/February_12-19%2C_2021_map_of_hours_at_or_under_freezing_temperatures.png
J.-P. D.
techno…”Although the state of Texas in the United states got hit hard, the east coast has been moderate. It has not seen the massive cold”.
The reason for the cold air in Texas is movement of an extremely cold air pocket from the Arctic extending southward. That cold air is caused by the current location of the Earth in its orbit and its axial tilt. The Arctic is literally getting no solar input this time of year and that allows freezing stratospheric air over the Arctic to descend into the Arctic and southward.
La Nina may have something to do with the conditions that allow the freezing Arctic air to descend that far south. One thing we know for sure, due to historical reports during the Little Ice Age in that part of the world is that such temperatures were typical in a Texas winter during the LIA. Even Florida did not escape.
CO2 and other GHGs have absolutely nothing to do with it as some whining alarmists have claimed. Current global warming, along with climate changes like receding glaciers and rising sea levels are all related to a recovery from the LIA. Nothing to do with anthropogenic warming.
TechnoCaveman
Don’t believe in the trashy stuff written by Ignoramuses like Robertson:
” That cold air is caused by the current location of the Earth in its orbit and its axial tilt. ”
That is complete nonsense, because this happens every year.
What was unusual (though it happened 2 years ago in Northern CONUS already) is the weakening of the polar vortex (a circumpolar jet stream), due to an extreme, sudden warming of the lower stratosphere (you can observe such things in UAH’s data).
To what such SSW’s are due: no se.
Alarmists pretend it’s a consequence of global warming. But… such a warming certainly didn’t happen at the time these SSW’s were first discovered.
J.-P. D.
Maybe economics is a good analogy for knowing the difference between weather and climate.
People invest in shares because while they are volatile over the short term, they bring in good returns over the long term.
Saying global warming doesn’t exist because of a cold snap is like saying the stock market is going to permanently tank because of one down day, or month, or year.
https://tinyurl.com/yc2jy9ub
Barry, nice analogy, but one critical flaw. The Natural Laws of Physics doesn’t define the Stock Market. Energy, radiative Energy, travels at the speed of light. When it leaves the atmosphere, it leaves the atmosphere. When temperatures drop below the level of the previous year, decade, or century, the system resets. It has to add that energy back into the system. The volatility that takes out previous lows proves that CO2 is not “trapping” any heat. Energy of W/M^2 is tied to a nonchanging rate, so it is easy to calculate how much energy could possibly be added to a system over a certain time period. Also, CO2 adds energy, that is all it can do, so it can’t explaining cooling.
The atmosphere is not the heat reservoir in the climate system though. A cooling atmosphere does NOT mean that energy/heat left the planet. It just means that it left the atmosphere. It could have transferred into the ocean, land, or ice as well. I recommend reading Schuckmann et al. 2020 for a brief introduction into how much energy is trapped in the climate system and where it gets distributed.
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/2013/2020/essd-12-2013-2020.pdf
bdgwx, the atmosphere can NOT warm the oceans, except in localized events. Considered as two massive sub-systems, the atmosphere can NOT warm the surface. Thermal energy moves from the surface to the atmosphere to space.
You can’t change reality, as you attempt to do.
“the atmosphere can NOT warm the surface.”
Gee, then I wonder how all us surface travelers feel so much warmer when the atmosphere is warmer?
Nate
Although I disagree with most of what ClintR says, I have to agree with him on his statement “the atmosphere can NOT warm the surface”
This part is correct. The atmosphere lowers the amount of radiant heat lost. With no atmosphere (at current conditions until things cool) the Earth surface would lose an average of about 398 Watts/m^2. The solar input (which would increase to 240 W/m^2 from 160) would be far less than this so the surface would start cooling.
With the atmosphere, the surface still cools radiatively just much less at around 50 W/m^2 average. Now the 160 input from the Sun is more than the radiative loss so the surface warms until it is balanced by the other surface heat losses of evaporation and convection.
Even adding CO2 does not “warm” the surface. It does allow more DWIR that lowers the radiant heat loss some. The surface can warm to a higher level. In reality the CO2 is not warming anything. Without the solar input the surface would keep cooling.
barry…”Saying global warming doesnt exist because of a cold snap is like saying the stock market is going to permanently tank because of one down day, or month, or year”.
You are misstating the problem. It’s not global warming that’s the problem it is the THEORY that trace gases in the atmosphere are causing not only warming, but catastrophic climate change.
Climate alarmists are trying to explain the cold snaps as being predicted by AGW theory. Rather than regarding them for what they are, extreme cooling that flies in the face of AGW theory, and have been doing so since Hansen predicted climate gloom and doom in 1988, alarmists are sticking by their credo that extreme cooling spells are all part of anthropogenic warming theory.
The cart is before the horse. No one has come close to proving AGW theory and the weather/climate is still as it always has been. AGW theorists must first validate their theory before getting on a podium to announce the end of the world.
Sorry Gordon and CO2isLife, you’ve missed the point, which is about short-term variability vs long term trend.
I’m saying that pointing to cold periods as proof that global warming isn’t happening is akin to pointing to downturns in the stock market as proof of a permanent decline.
Wrong barry. Cold periods, especially cold periods that break 100-year-old records are just more evidence that the globe is NOT warming.
At some point, your will have to face reality.
ClintR
You are the one who can’t “face reality”. Look at Roy Spencer graph at the top of the article. His graph shows global warming. He even gives a trend of 0.14 C/Decade increase.
Cold temperature records do not logically conclude the “globe is not warming”. You must seek other evidence like Roy’s long term temperature graph.
The Arctic air in winter will be very cold regardless of warming globe.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e4/JanArcticSfcT.svg/1024px-JanArcticSfcT.svg.png
Even if the Arctic Winter was 3 F warmer now then 100 years ago, if that air moves down to Texas you will still have extremely cold temperatures (although it will moderate some as it moves over the warmer land).
I think you are limiting your thinking by just observing a short term weather pattern and using this as evidence of a long term underlying pattern (slow global warming or perhaps rapid in geological time scales).
Sorry Norman, cold periods, especially cold periods that break 100-year-old records are just more evidence that the globe is NOT warming.
Still there are twice as many warm records as cold records, so that means you are a clown.
The reality is that the globe has warmed even while the US has had several cold snaps with record-breaking temperature.
Cold US weather has not cancelled global warming.
The reality is also that you are a troll who has little interest in honest conversation, and, like DREMT, are here only to snipe and muddy the waters.
It’s good to poiont trolls out so that others don’t waste their time with them.
barry, please stop trolling.
Wow barry, this drop in UAH temperatures is really getting to you.
You’ve never understood the science, and now you must resort to name-calling.
It will only get funnier as your false beliefs continue to disintegrate.
Barry Says: Sorry Gordon and CO2isLife, youve missed the point, which is about short-term variability vs long term trend.
Im saying that pointing to cold periods as proof that global warming isnt happening is akin to pointing to downturns in the stock market as proof of a permanent decline.
Barry, you don’t seem to understand the physics. CO2 is claimed to “TRAP” more heat is its PPM increases. You can check that using MODTRAN. W/M^2 continually increases with an increase in PPM (at a log decay manner). That means that once a previous low is passed, there in no energy trapped by CO2. A Watt is a rate, so you can calculate how long it would possibly be required to return to the previous high level. Bottom line, it recent temperatures are below the level of 1880, CO2 didn’t add any energy to the system over a 140 year period when CO2 increased by 30%.
1. The atmosphere is not the only heat reservoir. In fact, only 1-2% of the excess energy being accumulated in the climate system goes into the atmosphere.
2. Energy/heat moves between heat reservoirs. For example, a movement of energy/heat from the air to land would decrease the temperature of the air and increase the temperature of the land. This energy/heat could then transfer back into the air increasing the temperature in the air and decreasing it in the land. No energy/heat has been lost to space as a result of this movement. These kinds of movements occur all of the time and make air temperatures very noisy. ENSO is one such unforced natural variation in the climate system that moves heat around.
3. Read this paper on the energy/heat stored in the climate system. Pay particular attention to the amount of variation there is with individual heat reservoirs and compare it to the variation of the total. If there is something you do not understand ask questions.
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/12/2013/2020/essd-12-2013-2020.pdf
bdgwx says: 1. The atmosphere is not the only heat reservoir. In fact, only 1-2% of the excess energy being accumulated in the climate system goes into the atmosphere.
bdgwx, now you are getting close. Where does all that energy come from to warm the atmosphere? You got it, largely the Oceans. What warms the oceans? You got it, not CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18µ, short wavelength visible radiation close to 0.4µ.
Study the amount of radiation reaching the oceans and you understand climate change. One El Nino will remove years of additional W/M^2 from CO2.
The surface (ocean/land) warms when Ein-Eout > 0 and cools when Ein-Eout < 0. Ein for the surface is composed of geothermal (0.1 W/m^2), solar (161 W/m^2), and DWIR (342 W/m^2). Eout for the surface is composed of sensible (20 W/m^2), latent (80 W/m^2), and UWIR (398 W/m^2). Yes, solar is one component, but it is only one among 6 that has to be considered. Another component is DWIR of which CO2 contributes to its magnitude. If you don't understand why the temperature of the surface is modulated by Ein-Eout then ask questions.
Wild et al. 2013 is my reference for figures in this post.
https://aip.scitation.org/doi/pdf/10.1063/1.4804848
Also, make sure you read the publication by Wong & Minnett 2018 for the microphysical explanation for how DWIR warms the ocean.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/2017JC013351
bdgwx continues to be confused. He believes the sky is more of a source than Sun!
He can’t understand flux is NOT the same as energy, and he can’t learn.
The surface absorbs 2.6e24 joules of energy from the Sun each year and 5.5e24 joules of energy from DWIR each year. 5.5e24 is > than 2.6e24 so the sky does indeed provide more energy to the surface than the Sun. But my main point is that the laws of thermodynamics say that a body’s temperature is dictated not by just the amount of energy it receives, but by the amount it sheds as well. That’s why the 1LOT calculation of dE = 0.87 A.Wyears or 14e21 joules each year is so crucial understanding why the planet is warming.
bdgwx, you remind me of a drug addict trying to justify why he’s a drug addict.
You don’t know squat about thermodynamics. You just believe the nonsense you have learned from your cult.
Energy in the system does not keep adding. The energy from the sky is not the same as the energy from Sun. You keep making the same mistakes over and over. You’re still trying to add ice cubes, believing you can make something hotter than the ice.
ClintR
Flux (as you define it in Watts/m^2) can easily be converted to energy received over a period of time. The size remains constant.
300 watts (joules/second) will deliver more energy to the same area as 100 watts in the same time period (24 hours for a cycle on Earth surface).
Not sure at all what point you are trying to make on this issue.
ClintR
But I will agree with you that the atmosphere is not a greater source than the Sun.
The atmosphere is still a negative NET value, the Sun input is only postive.
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/styles/full_width/public/thumbnails/image/ceres-poster-011-v2.jpg?itok=43dwxKEV
The Sun contributes 163.3 Watts/m^2 (average) energy to the Surface.
The atmosphere contributes minus 57.9 Watts/m^2 to the surface.
The reason CO2 will increase the surface temperature (with a constant solar input) over the 100 years of warming is because it has reduced the atmospheric loss from around 59.9 w/m^2 to what we see now (minus 57.9). If the surface radiant loss is reduced with the same solar input and no other changes to evaporation or convection, the surface will warm up).
Wrong Norman. The atmosphere does not warm the surface. It’s the other way around. The surface warms the atmosphere.
You’re as confused as bdgwx because, like him, you don’t understand the physics and you get your beliefs from the same inaccurate sources.
Clint R believes under standard conditions if you replace a dry ice cube with a water ice cube in your glass of Coca-Cola then your beverage does not warm up. Clint R does not understand complicated thermodynamics and does not believe in doing tests; for Clint R assertions are all that is required for physical proof of nature.
Norman,
In terms of the net exchange between the surface and atmosphere it is 340.3 (DWIR) – 18.4 (sensible) – 86.4 (latent) – 358.2 (UWIR absorbed) = -122.7 W/m^2. So we would say the sky contributes a net of -122.7 W/m^2 to the surface. Or said another way the atmosphere provides a mechanism to remove 122.7 W/m^2 from the surface. The remaining (163.3 – 122.7) = 40.6 W/m^2 is divided into a 0.6 W/m^2 surface imbalance and 40.0 W/m^2 atmospheric window to space.
bdgwx, your sign convention results in a headache. Here DWIR = positive, UWIR = negative is common sign convention global over 4-20 annual satellite era periods result in Earth system energy imbalance in W/m^2 around (depending on period):
(+235 DWIR + 18.4 sensible downdrafts + 86.4 latent precipitation/condensation down) – 18.4 (sensible updrafts) – 86.4 (latent evaporation/transpiration up) – 358.2 (UWIR absorbed in semi-opaque atm.) = -122.7 your UWIR net as measured from surface less emitted clear window IR direct to space as measured by satellite equals absorbed system imbalance.
Or Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI) then is measured: +163.3 SW absorbed – your 122.7 UWIR net to IR opaque atm. – 40 UWIR clear window to space = 0.6 EEI calibrated with surface thermometers to around +/- 0.25 so a meaningful amount energy imbalance measured in the direction of system warming in the period (if my math contains no typo or sign error as it is never under warranty).
ball4, yeah thanks. Good point.
ClintR said: Energy in the system does not keep adding.
We get it. You’ve made your point that you think the 1LOT is bogus abundantly clear.
Now let me make my point abundantly clear. It has never been demonstrated by repeatable experiment that the 1LOT can be violated. Therefore I, most other posters on this blog, scientists, and the rest of the world have to accept it for what it is.
No bdgwx, you don’t get it.
There’s nothing wrong with 1LoT, but there’s plenty wrong with your understanding of it.
My understanding of the 1LOT is that the total amount of energy entering/leaving a system must match the sum of the energies of the individual components that comprise the total. And that the imbalance on the system is given by dE = Ein – Eout.
Well, that statement of 1LoT is cumbersome, almost to the point of being misleading.
But, your mis-understanding starts with trying to balance flux. Flux is NOT energy, and cannot be treated as a simple scalar quantity. When you, and the other idiots, claim an “energy imbalance” in units of “W/m^2”, you’re indicating you don’t have a clue about the physics involved.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint R, the measurement time period is a given so the amount of seconds is known thus Earth energy imbalance of energy in – energy out = net energy imbalance from 1LOT in the period can be calculated from W/m^2 even by you, but I am totally skeptical you can do so unless you show us.
Ball4, you appear to understand my point. In order to consider balancing energy, you much have “energy”. Flux is not energy.
Now let’s see if you can remember what I taught you.
Clint R, yes I understand your point. You appear to not understand my point.
In order to consider balancing energy in the period examined, you convert to “energy” by multiplying by the seconds in the period (a constant). Flux is energy/sec in Watts. It is energy that is conserved in the period of interest (here 4-20 years).
Now let’s see if you can remember what I taught you.
Wrong again, Ball4.
Flux is Watts/m^2, or Joules/sec/m^2. You don’t have a clue about any of this, just like the other idiots. You don’t even understand the basics.
That’s why this is so much fun.
All per unit area Clint R. If you want to multiply by the area of the top of atmosphere of our planet, you can do that too as well as the number of seconds. I do hope you understand scientific notation in doing so. My guess is you cannot do that correctly or prove it.
Now let’s see if you can remember what I taught you.
Wrong again, Ball4.
It’s not a matter of “want to multiply by the area”. You MUST multiply by the area to find the energy.
But, here I am trying to teach physics to an idiot. And, I know better.
So enough fun for one day.
You will get the same answer Clint, a little warming, just different by a BIG constant.
“Barry, you dont seem to understand the physics. CO2 is claimed to…”
I’m not talking about the physics.
I can’t help it if people see posts as an opportunity to push their favourite hobby-horse talking point. But I can point out that this is what they are doing.
It’s amazing to see people like Clint R writing
” Wow barry, this drop in UAH temperatures is really getting to you. ”
What drop?
If we consider the period from January 2016 till now, we obtain a linear trend of
-0.08 +- 0.16 C
But this zero trend of course everybody obtains when computing it for any period starting with the highest value of the whole era from 1979 till now.
If we consider the period from January 2017 till now, by the way excluding this highest value due to the 2016 El Nino peak, we obtain a linear trend of
+0.38 +- 0.16 C
for the four most recent years in the UAH record.
What drop? That of the last three or four months? Are such people serious?
Or are they just trolling here?
Oh Noes…
J.-P. D.
Bindidon. if your IQ was 60, but after that last comment it was 40, did it drop?
Since your antecedent is false, your conclusion is uncertain.
binny…”If we consider the period from January 2016 till now, we obtain a linear trend of -0.08 +- 0.16 C”
Why is your error margin, 0.32 C, mammoth compared to your linear change? The fact that you think the linear trend is measured in hundredths of a degree C while the real global temps have dropped nearly a full degree C does not speak well for your mathematical abilities.
Robertson
You are a totally unexperienced person, regardless what you write about (Moon’s spin, viruses, relativity, and here: temperatures, times series, trends).
If, instead of endlessly repeating your egocentric blah blah, you had been willing to acquire a bit of knowledge, you would know that the standard error in linear trends increases when
– the deviations about the mean increase
and
– the period for trend computation becomes smaller.
This has nothing to do with ‘real global temps’; and especially YOU anyway do not know how UAH’s real temps behave, because they are not published. I, however, can compute them.
You will never learn because you don’t want to learn.
And the very best is that you are not even able to read a document correctly, because you don’t see when you leave the plain text and enter a foot note.
Oh Noes.
J.-P. D.
binny…”You are a totally unexperienced person…”
I actually studied probability and statistics in my engineering studies. It was a full year course. I also learned to take errors in measurements based on the accuracy of the measuring instrument.
The trend you mentioned, 0.08 +-0.16C makes no sense. An ordinary mercury thermometer with gradations of 0.1 C could not read 0.08C. You would need an instrument that could read in 100ths of a degree C. If you had such an instrument you would give the error in 100ths of a degree, not the +/- 0.16 C you gave as an error margin.
GR,
Do I need to remind you that the standard error of the mean is E = S/sqrt(N)?
For example, if you have 10,000 thermometers with a modest +/- 1C of error then the error of mean is still only E = 1/sqrt(10000) = 0.01C.
That is a great analogy.
Great or not (thanks), it’s nice to at least have someone respond to the point!
I’m going to steal it and start using it myself. I think it provides a great example of how there can be an uptrend embedded in an otherwise very chaotic trajectory that everyone can intuitively related to.
Literally nothing is happening.
ren…”Real climate experts know whats going on. They know that stratospheric intrusions in winter depend on the state of the polar vortex in the stratosphere”.
And the reason for the stratospheric intrusions is the total lack of solar input to the upper Arctic in winter. There is nothing anyone can do about that and no amount of atmospheric CO2 can change it.
nicholas Mac…”In order to prove mathematically that the moon is not rotating, one has to rewrite the formula for a stationary synchronous orbit.
If the Moon is not rotating, then all of celestial mechanics has to be rewritten…”
No, they don’t, since they were never based on a locally rotating Moon. Any orbital mechanics is based on two factors: the tangential momentum of the Moon and the perpendicular effect of Earth’s gravitational field. There is nothing in there about lunar local rotation.
The Moon has no local rotation, it is a translating body, performing rectilinear translation, and it’s rectilinear path is bent into a curvilinear orbital path by Earth’s gravitational field. Translation alone explains the motion of the Moon and its change of orientation as it orbits. It’s a fallacy that the Moon is in synchronous local rotation per orbit.
I copy here what I wrote earlier:
This issue of rotation (local or not) is one of semantics or, if you like, definition. It is like discussing speed. From which vantage point is speed or rotation being calculated/viewed. If I stand on the surface of the sun and focus my telescope on the moon (ignoring the earths presence) then I will observe a moon that rotates around its own axis once in every 28 days (of course the Earth will block my view half of the time). The cause of the rotation (celestial mechanics) is irrelevant.
So guys stop your bickering and get out of your own righteous bubble.
It is a bit the same when we consider speed. One will claim that since the speed of light is 300,000km/sec nothing can go faster than that. Again this is dependent on vantage point. Two objects can move apart from each other by the a speed of 400,000 km/sec without violating any physical law. Imagine we could propel an object straight up into the sky on the north pole with a speed of 200,000 km/sec and do the same at the south pole, the two objects will move apart with a speed of 400,000 km/sec.
CS,
Nope. Only in your imagination.
Reread your relativity textbook. I know it seems counter intuitive, but space and time cannot be taken as absolute. Make sure you note the differences between special and general relativity.
Confirmed by experiment, and practical applications include relativistic GPS and GLONASS corrections.
Feel free to be extremely annoyed when you find out your simplistic thinking is not supported by reality.
Chris, Moon is clearly NOT rotating about its axis. If it were, Earth could see that rotation.
If you look at Moon from Sun, or from “the stars”, it APPEARS to be rotating about its axis due to its orbital motion about Earth.
It’s the same with a ball-on-a-string. The same side of the ball always faces the inside of its orbit. But to someone standing outside the orbit, it would APPEAR as if the ball were rotating about its axis. But, if the ball were REALLY rotating about its axis, the string would wrap around it.
More physically accurate than ClintR can grasp: Moon is clearly NOT rotating about its axis more or less than once per obit. If it were, Earth inhabitants could see that rotation.
If you look at Moon from Sun, or from “the stars”, it is rotating about its internal axis in addition to its orbital motion about Earth on an external axis.
It’s the same with a ball-on-a-string. The same side of the ball always faces the inside of its orbit. To someone standing outside the orbit, it is observed the ball is rotating about its axis once per orbit. If the ball were REALLY rotating about its axis more or less than once per orbit, the string would wrap around it.
ball4…”If you look at Moon from Sun, or from the stars, it is rotating about its internal axis in addition to its orbital motion about Earth on an external axis”.
Why do you insist on moving into the recesses of your conditioned mind to analyze this problem superficially? There is no need to look at it from different mental perspectives, look at it from the Earth and show us how the Moon can possibly rotate about a local axis while keep the same face pointed toward us.
It’s dead simple. If the Moon is not rotating about a local axis in our dimension it is not possible for it to rotate about a local axis in any dimension.
Clint,
Did you ever figure out how to calculate the velocity of the far and near side of the moon, dumbass?
“But, if the ball were REALLY rotating about its axis, the string would wrap around it.”
Except the string is also rotating, so no, it wouldn’t wrap around the ball.
The string is rotating once per revolution same as the ball, so it doesn’t wrap around itself, does it?
chris…”This issue of rotation (local or not) is one of semantics or, if you like, definition. It is like discussing speed. From which vantage point is speed or rotation being calculated/viewed”.
You are dealing in theory and abstractions. Einstein proclaimed that nothing could go faster than light because it fit his theory about relativity. He arbitrarily added a multiplier onto the common physics definition of s = vt, where s = distance, v = velocity, and t = time. He offered this multiplier without scientific proof as s = vt(1 – v^2/c^2), where c = speed of light as a constant.
Einstein’s relativity is, in general, a load of nonsense that can be covered adequately by Newtonian mechanics, except for particles at atomic scale. I call it nonsense because Einstein’s multiplier introduces a concept of time and distance variation as velocity changes. Utter rubbish, since there is not an iota of physical proof for this multiplier.
When you start dealing with different dimensions and points of perspective you move from reality (actuality) into the vagueness of the conditioned human mind. Your mind has been conditioned because you have accepted what others have told you. You are using that mind to assess fiction in lieu of physical reality.
When we talk about speed, we are talking about a movement without a specified direction. When direction is specified, the scalar quantity speed becomes the vector quantity velocity. On Earth, if I measure a mass moving at a certain velocity, I must specify with respect to what. That is understood. From the POV, velocity is relative.
When we specify the velocity of the Moon, hence its linear momentum, it is understood that we are measuring that velocity wrt to a station on Earth. Without that station, we have no time, since time is a definition created by humans based on the rotation of the Earth. So, the Moon’s velocity is based on a machine (clock) designed to measure the angular velocity of the Earth.
The Moon’s velocity is based on its motion wrt to a radial line from the centre of the Earth through the Moon. The velocity of the Moon at any one instant is based on the instantaneous change of position of the radial line at the Moon’s COG. Next instant, the direction has changed and will continue to change through an orbit. Therefore, the Moon’s path is described by a series of instantaneous velocity vectors which describe a path of translation, not rotation.
The motion of that intersection of the Moon and the radial line is translation, by definition. If you want to go into another dimension to measure the motion, that’s your personal business. It has nothing to do with what I just described other than in a relative manner. I have just explained the motion of the Moon and its constant change of orientation with no local rotation whatsoever. That is the reality.
Wow. my word, I am impressed.
“The Moon has no local rotation, it is a translating body”
As any mathematician or physicist will tell you, translation does NOT include rotation — the object retains the same orientation with respect to cartesian coordinates.
For instance, from Wikipedia”
“In Euclidean geometry, a translation is a geometric transformation that moves every point of a figure or a space by the same distance in a given direction. A translation can also be interpreted as the addition of a constant vector to every point, or as shifting the origin of the coordinate system. In a Euclidean space, any translation is an isometry.”
Even when you try to sound technical, your own explanation defies you.
Translation alone explains the motion of the center of the moon — but would keep one side fixed relative to the inertial reference frame of the stars.
Translation + rotation explains the motion of the center of the moon AND the orientation relative to the earth.
tim…”As any mathematician or physicist will tell you, translation does NOT include rotation the object retains the same orientation with respect to cartesian coordinates”.
Tim, you are missing the forest for the trees. The Moon has only linear momentum. Without Earth’s gravity pulling it off its path, it would carry on in a straight line. There is no rotation anywhere, although as dremt points out, the Earth orbiting the Moon could be regarded as rotation about an external axis.
I agree with dremt in principle with regard to accepted definitions but the Moon is technically not rotating about the Earth. It is always moving in a straight line and that line gets bent into a curved orbit by Earth’s gravitational field. That form of translation explains the Moon’s change in orientation through 360 degrees per orbit. The synchronous rotation orbit does not and cannot explain it.
In fact, it’s not possible for the MOon to rotate once per orbit about a local axis while keeping the same face pointed at the Earth. That should be apparent to you and the fact it isn’t apparent suggests you have failed to examine the problem with sufficient scrutiny.
“The Moon has only linear momentum.”
The moon has all sorts of properties — momentum, acceleration, potential energy etc. In particular, it also has angular momentum due to its orbit: L = r x p. And importantly, it also has angular momentum due to its rotation: L = (2/5 MR^2)(omega).
“It is always moving in a straight line and that line gets bent into a curved orbit by Earths gravitational field. “
In classical physics, it is not moving in a straight line.
In relativity, it is following a “geodesic”. Not exactly “a straight line” but similar.
But neither of these ideas supports “the moon can’t be spinning.
“In fact, its not possible for the Moon to rotate once per orbit about a local axis while keeping the same face pointed at the Earth. That should be apparent to you and the fact it isnt apparent suggests you have failed to examine the problem with sufficient scrutiny.”
The fact that you accept this suggests you have failed to apply sufficient scrutiny. If nothing else, generations of scientists smarter than either of us have concluded the moon rotates.
Here are two simple ways to see that the moon, is indeed spinning on its only axis.
1) Consider the merry-go-round analogy. Since gravity creates no torque (to a very excellent approximation), we should imagine the merry-go-round horse on a frictionless axle. Start with the MGR stationary and the horse not spinning. If you start up the MGR, the MGR will start to spin and the horse will start to move in a circle (it “orbits”). But the orientation of the horse with not change. If the nose was pointing north to begin with, it will continue to point north as the MGR rotates. You would have to give the horse a push to start it spinning to to keep the same side facing inward — you would have to start it spinning on its axis.
2) Or the record player analogy. Hold the base of the record player with a ‘fixed orientation’ relative to the stars. When the record player is turned on, the record rotates at a fixed rate relative to its axis. If I carry around the record player with this fixed orientation, the record continues to rotate on its axis at a fixed rate.
I don’t expect you to agree or understand. But at least *consider* that there is an alternate explanation. That the point representing the center of the moon follows a path and that a set of coordinates with its origin at that point and axes fixed relative to the stars gives an accurate explanation of the motion of the moon.
TF, you still don’t understand the physics involved, and you can’t learn.
Gordon is correct, Moon only has linear momentum. Your formulas are correct, but they don’t apply here.
And your “frictionless” MGR horse has already been debunked. You just can’t learn.
Clint,
You are a joke. You are the clown who can’t even calculate the velocity of the far and near side of the moon! Ever figure that out Einstein? What a moron.
SGW, I get a chuckle every time you use that silly question. You don’t understand the difference between orbital motion and kinematics. And you can’t learn. All you have it that nonsense question.
That’s why this is so much fun.
You pretty funny ClintR,
You make up your own physics and laugh at others who refuse to learn your nonsense, and stick to the thoroughly vetted science of the last 500 years.
Keep your seat belt on in the clown car.
Again bob, you have nothing of substance.
Sorry ClintR
The Moon turns, end of story.
Did you do your homework, calculating the velocity of the near and far side of the Moon?
I know you won’t do that because it leads to proof that the Moon is rotating.
Is it because you can’t do the calculation or because you won’t?
Gordon stupidly shrieks:
The Moon has no local rotation, it is a translating body
Per Brown University school of engineering:
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.
Every reference source on the planet disagrees with your moronic definition.
Per the Madhavi paper:
Translation : A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion.
A line through the moon never keeps the same direction during the motion, nor remains parallel to its original position.
Please stop with this nonsense. You are only making a fool of yourself.
skeptic…”Translation, rectilinear and curvilinear: Motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position”.
Are you completely stupid? I have explained to you in great detail how a non-rotating body following a linear or curved path keeps every line in its body always parallel yet you have failed to contradict my explanation other than through lame references to text books.
Your brain appear to be too rigid to understand.
But the Moon doesn’t do that, cause it turns.
Bob,
You can lead an ass to water, but you cannot make him drink
SGW,
First you have to beat the ass to death, then saddle him, and then you can lead him to water.
That’s about how difficult it is to get some of these posters to learn science.
Through this discussion, I have learned about 7 ways to prove the Moon is rotating on its axis.
Some will always be with you
Some you will never understand
Black Sabbath never was the same
Since Ozzy left the band
REMAINS parallel to the ORIGINAL position Not parallel to the curved path!
any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion That does not happen with the moon’s motion. Any line through the moon is continually changing direction.
In translation, there is no rotation of any line in the body. That is not true with the moon’s motion.
All points of the body have the same velocity A point on the far side of the moon has a greater velocity than a point on the near side.
Curvilinear Translation: All points move on congruent curves A point on the far side of the moon moves on a concentric curve with a point on the near side.
The moon’s motion does not meet ANY of the requirements for translation.
Have you provided a definition from a reliable source that meets your goofy idea? No.
skeptic…”Curvilinear Translation: All points move on congruent curves A point on the far side of the moon moves on a concentric curve with a point on the near side”.
DU-u-u-u-h!!!! That’s what I have been saying all along, that every point on the Moon moves along concentric circles (orbital paths). Since the inner face always points at the Earth it means the Moon cannot rotate about a local axis.
The system is defined by a rotating radial line with the Earth’s centre as its axis. The motion of each particle is along an instantaneous path which is a line tangential to that radial line. As the radial line rotates, each tangential path must point in a different direction and complete a full 360 degree re-orientation each orbit.
The average velocity of each particle is determined by the velocity of the COG, which has an angular velocity of the radial line’s angular velocity. Therefore, each particle completes one orbit in the same time.
You are still confused about the properties of a rigid body. Although you can visualize each particle turning in concentric circles, it means nothing. A rigid body is defined based on its COG, not each particle. You reference to the velocity of a particle on the far side versus a particle on the near side has nothing to do with the average velocity of the rigid body itself.
Gordon,
Really? That went right over your head.
Translation. It is any motion in which every line in the body remains parallel to its original position at all times. In translation, there is no rotation of any line in the body.
1. Rectilinear Translation: All points in the body move in parallel straight lines.
2. Curvilinear Translation: All points move on congruent curves.
https://kisi.deu.edu.tr/binnur.goren/intermediate%20dynamics/1_kinematics%20of%20rigid%20body(2).pdf
You just debunked yourself! You admitted that every point on the moon moves on concentric circles. Curvilinear translation requires every point to move on congruent curves/circles.
Furthermore, you don’t know crap about rigid bodies. The definition is as follows:
Formally it is defined as a collection of particles with the property that the distance between particles remains unchanged during the course of motions of the body.
https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Engineering/Courses/En4/notes_old/RigidKinematics/rigkin.htm
You are just making stuff up. A rigid body is NOT based on the center of mass of the body.
The other characteristic of translation, both curvilinear and rectilinear, is that the velocity of every point on the rigid body is the same. So we can check the velocity of two points on the moon. A point on the far side of the moon has a greater velocity than the near side, therefore the moon is not translating. The other two reasons the moon is not translating per the above definition:
1. A line drawn through the moon does not remain parallel to its original position. and,
2. A line drawn through the moon rotates.
That’s four reasons. How many more do you need?
So far you have failed to provide any definition of translation in a valid physics or kinematics reference source that matches your definition.
SGW, you’re still trying to use kinematics with orbital motion. That will result in wrong answers. You can’t use kinematics with orbital motion. Forget kinematics, and learn orbital motion.
A simple model is a ball-on-a-string. The ball is not rotating about its axis. The same side faces the center of its orbit. It’s the same motion as Moon.
The Moon turns.
The ball on a string turns.
The parallel axis theorem is true.
Everything orbiting rotates on two or more axes, except the Hubble telescope under active controls to stop that rotation about its own axis. Stop that control and it will start rotating on its own axis again.
The moon debate is settled – it does not rotate on its own axis.
Trolls gonna troll an ignore facts.
Once again, kudos to Roy Spencer and John Christy of UAH for keeping the scientific world honest.
To the North, a huge high extends from northern Canada through Greenland and Iceland to Scandinavia. This is definitely not a temporary baric system.
Currently, the stratospheric polar vortex has separated from the troposphere and La Nina will be the decisive influence on mid-latitude weather.
From 1979/01-2021/02 the UAH TLT trend is +0.1371C/decade +/- 0.0066. The trend line currently sits at +0.211C. The Feb value was +0.196C.
From 1979/01-2021/01 the RSS/UAH TLT composite trend is +0.1765C/decade +/- 0.0064. The trend line currently sits at +0.45C. The Jan value was +0.36C.
From 1979/01-2021/01 the ERA trend is +0.1916C/decade +/- 0.0055.
From 1979/01-2021/01 the GISS trend is +0.1916C/decade +/- 0.0053.
From 1979/01-2020/12 the BEST trend is +0.1912C/decade +/- 0.0053.
From 1979/01-2021/01 the NOAA trend is +0.1759C/decade +/- 0.0047.
From 1979/01-2020/12 the Hadley-v4 trend is +0.1734C/decade +/- 0.0048.
Note that NOAA and Hadley-v4 are only partial sphere measurements since they do not provide complete coverage in the polar regions. This is why their trends are lower. Hadley-v5 uses spatial averaging technique that does provide coverage missing from v4, but it is not updating monthly yet. Hopefully the NOAA dataset will follow suit and provide more complete coverage in the future like the others do.
bdgwx, to highlight how misleading your regression analysis is, change the time frame of the regression. Make it a rolling 10 or 20 year regression. You will quickly learn that you can get any answer you want, dependent upon the time period of the regression. If you do that, you will see that you will get both + and – Slopes when applied to the UAH Satellite data.
1998 to 2013 would show a negative slope.
1980 to 1997 would show a negative slope.
There is nothing regarding the physics of the CO2 molecule and its interaction with 13 to 18µn; LWIR that would support the “steps” you see in the temperature chart. The “Steps” correspond to El Ninos, which are unrelated to CO2.
13 to 18µ
From 1979/01-2021/02 the SP500 stock market index trend is 627/decade +/- 12.
I did a 10y rolling linear regression on this data. 25% of the monthly values were accompanied by a trailing 10y regression with a negative slope.
Does that invalid the long term trend of the index?
Did people’s portfolio’s not gain value?
Should people stop investing in stocks?
bdgwx, you may have stumbled upon something there. I bet if you run a regression of CO2 vs the Stock Market and Co2 vs Temperatures, you will get a far higher R-Squared with the Stock Market than Temperatures. In other words, you have more evidence that CO2 causes the stock market to go higher than you do that CO2 causes temperatures to go higher.
There will undoubtedly be a correlation there. But correlation does not imply causation. I will say that it is pretty easy hypothesize why the correlation exists. Energy is required to build wealth. Burning fossil fuels is one method of providing energy. CO2 is a byproduct of burning fossil fuels.
25% of the monthly values followed by a 10yr negative slope?
And yet the overall trend is up.
I wonder if CO2IL will
1) Understand the point
2) Respond directly to it
Climate and stock market is apples and oranges.
Can not contrast them.
Things are all in place for cooling finally and I expect and reversal in the trend.
I actually like analogy because of the similarities. They exhibit lots of short term variation yet both have a positive long term trend. But at the end of the day they are both just time series in which you can run any number statistic methods to analyze them. The stock market’s long term positive trend is no more or less misleading than the global mean temperature’s long term positive trend.
cor – a reversal in the trend.
When ? any time .
Ah ha! Salvatore (aka the kiss of death) is getting excited again. Lets put him to the test and ask him some simple questions. What is the probability that:
the UAH value for March will be greater than that for February? (i.e. looking ahead 1 month)
the UAH value for August will be greater than that for February? (i.e. looking ahead 6 months)
the UAH value for February 2022 will be greater than that for February 2021? (i.e. looking ahead 12 months)
Given that he expects a cooling trend to take over, logically, he should expect the probabilities for continuing warming to be low – and getting even lower.
I would expect the overdue cooling trend to favour values less than February.
1 month ahead about 60% chance of cooler
6 months ahead about 75% chance of cooler
12 months ahead about 90% chance of cooler
You can bet on it.
Off-topic
I have long thought the AMO might not be a real phenomenon.
Now the scientists who ‘discovered’ it think it might not actually exist.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/03/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-atlantic-multidecadal-oscillation/
There are various reasons I’ve doubted it is real – a lack of mechanism/s, the fact it is detected purely via modeling, but mostly from an inline comment by Grant Foster some years ago, when a preliminary analysis, he said, suggested global temps don’t lag AMO, but rather alias them.
The discussion on it isn’t over yet, and one paper very rarely is deterministic, but I would not be surprised if the AMO is eventually dropped.
Amending: the scientist that coined the term now thinks the AMO probably doesn’t exist.
Adding visuals…
https://tinyurl.com/yd5rtrrk
barry…get serious, realclimate is an alarmists site full of buffoons misrepresenting science. The site is about climate model theory and other pseudo-science dreamed up by Pierrehumbert.
If you had read the article you would know that it cautions against over-reliance on models.
You have a 2-dimensional take on these issues.
barry
In addition, please do not forget that even if it really exists, 90 % of the people referring to AMO use its ‘detrended’ variant when comparing it to temperatures.
That is nonsense.
The detrended variant has only one purpose: to demonstrate that AMO has a cyclic kernel.
To compare AMO with temperatures, you have to use the ‘undetrended’ variant:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wdF3gWcSwzxOLOFm5qHeR6VTBaD4XjKn/view
J.-P. D.
Yes, like the PDO and ENSO the AMO is detrended.
I’m curious why you say it is nonsense to use the final version of the data?
The detrended version is the AMO, an oscillating system by definition.
The version with the trend is basically North Atlantic SSTs, or some portion of the Atlantic. At least one version of the index attempts to remove any ENSO signal from the data, as well as detrending the SSTs.
barry
Using the detrended variant is nonsense (or better: incorrect) when comparing it with temperatures/i> because most people misunderstand or misrepresent it in order to show that the future soon will become cooler.
In the graph above, replacing ‘undetrended’ by ‘detrended’ lets AMO’s peak stay around 40 %, and thus unduly appear as a precursor of temperature decrease.
J.-P. D.
Ok.
SUGGESTION: I really wish Roy Spencer would do an article on the droughts in the West. Perhaps he already has. If so, could someone direct me to it?
California has now entered its third major drought since the dawn of the new millennium. Of course, the “scientific experts” attribute it all to “global warming” and “climate change”. But, is it really or is there some other cause?
I’d be really interested to hear what Professor Spencer has to say about this.
Regards,
Fred M. Cain
“Of course, the ‘scientific experts’ attribute it all to ‘global warming’ and ‘climate change’.”
The actual scientific experts will tell you that no single weather event can be completely attributed to climate change or global warming. What they say is that such events become more likely with climate change.
Of course the are ‘other causes’. We don’t get heatwaves because of global warming. But if the background temps are warmer, it’s reasonable to contend that heatwaves will be more severe in general.
You need to show your evidence that events are more likely and occurring due to climate change.
Why do I need to do this? I’m reporting what scientific experts say. A great many comments here are about correcting faulty premises. Go look up the science yourself!
Fred,
If you look at the history of the West, you will see a history of droughts and megadroughts. There is a professor in California who has published research. It isn’t difficult to find.
Yeah. It is pretty easy to find and well known. I think it serves a testament that even small perturbations in the global climate can have large regional effects. Like the LIA and MWP the drought history in the southwest US are good examples of this.
Maybe it is just a testament to the variability that has been since time began?
The US drought doesn’t even scratch the surface though. On a global scale the Earth has had snowball periods, hothouse periods, a couple million years of glacial advances and declines, numerous rapid warming events like the PETM, and the list goes on and on. Imagine the magnitude of changes that would have ensued on a regional scale from all of that. Given a big enough nudge both global and regional climates can shift dramatically and often quickly.
Fred M. Cain
I don’t live in CONUS, and know nothing about droughts. Maybe some pics below might be helpful.
Here is a chart showing droughts from 1900 till 2017 in CONUS:
https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/drought-timeseres.png
We immediately see that for CONUS, there is no visible link between temperature maxima and drought period accumulation:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qGV5LfKw_lFKNdZMlq15ZHz6sA1CA294/view
But of course, this is valid for CONUS only, the temperature maxima series for the Globe below looks quite different:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TFdltVVFSyDLPM4ftZUCEl33GmjJnasT/view
J.-P. D.
1934 and 1936 in the US still have the highest Summertime maximum temperature (but not highest minima) in the US record. That correlates with the highest drought peak on the index you graphed, Bindidon. It also coincides with the lowest Summer precipitation on record in 1934. A perfect ‘storm’ for drought.
https://tinyurl.com/ydegfmx4
https://tinyurl.com/ybzuk7eg
It’s suggestive, but not conclusive, of course.
There is another cause: change in rainfall pattern. Given the strong El Nino and La Nina effects recently, it stands to reason there is going to be changes to climate. Whether those changes are lasting or of short duration there is no way to tell.
Ken
I agree.
J.-P. D.
5 out of 7 of the UAH data sets show flat to negative warming:
2021 02 0.20 0.32 0.08 -0.14 -0.66 0.07 -0.27
How can the majority of the earth be flat to cooling, and the overall Global Graphic shows warming? Shouldn’t the oceans have a much higher weight in the composite than the Land Area for various reasons?
From left to right in table posted on this blog…
+0.20 – Globe covers 100% of Earth.
+0.32 – NH covers 50% of Earth.
+0.08 – SH covers 50% of Earth.
-0.14 – Tropics cover 20S to 20N or 34% of Earth.
-0.66 – USA48 covers 1.6% of the Earth.
+0.07 – Arctic covers 60N to 90N or 13.4% of Earth.
-0.27 – Australia covers 0.6% of the Earth.
Listed in the linked file as well…
+0.21 – SoExt covers 20S to 90S or 33% of Earth.
+0.54 – NoExt covers 20N to 90N or 33% of Earth
+0.14 – SH ocean covers 40% of Earth
+0.34 – NH ocean covers 30% of Earth
Note that many of these areas overlap.
As you can see the majority of Earth has positive anomalies. The -0.14 from the tropics accounts for only 34% of Earth. The remaining 66% was (0.21 + 0.54) / 2 = 0.38. And 0.34 * -0.14 + 0.66 * 0.38 = 0.20.
Also keep in mind here that these are monthly anomalies for a single month so statements about warming or cooling cannot be assessed. In other words positive/negative values do not necessarily imply warming/cooling.
The majority of the earth is NOT cooling (by which you actually mean “an anomaly below zero”, not “cooler than last month” or last year, etc.) The majority of the earth IS above average.
The “data sets” (monthly anomalies) you listed are:
0.20 Global
0.32 Northern HEM
0.08 Sothern HEM.
-0.14 TROPIC
-0.66 USA48
0.07 ARCTIC
-0.27 AUST
The first is the global average. This is definitely “a majority of the earth” and it is above average.
The next two are the Northern Hemisphere and the Southern Hemisphere. Ie the entire globe again! The average of these is simply the same global average is the first number.
The remaining 4 numbers are specific regions. Other than “Tropics” these are relatively small parts of the globe that together do not form a majority of the global. The fact the 3 out of 4 specific regions are cool does not contradict that the globe as whole can be above average.
CO2isLife
” 5 out of 7 of the UAH data sets show flat to negative warming… ”
The problem with people like you, CO2isLife, is that you do not have any REAL knowledge of what you are talking about.
1. How is it possible to draw conclusions out of a single month?
Temperatures go up and down and up and down! And this is the reason why everybody considers longer periods, and not single values.
*
2. How can a person like you, totally ignoring how the UAH anomalies are constructed by the team responsible for them, pretend such a complete nonsense?
The UAH anomalies Roy Spencer shows above, like he does every month, are a tiny subset of all what you can see — but only IF you know where to find the whole.
And manifestly, though it is trivial to become aware of them, you still did not manage to look a the source you need, which is a few lines below:
https://tinyurl.com/b84c2eyx
(tinyURL’d because of the ‘d c’ problem)
There you see 27 (yeah: tẃenty seven) columns.
24 of them are ‘land+ocean’, ‘land-only’ and ‘ocean-only’ averages for 8 latitudinal zones:
Globe, NH, SH, Tropics, NH Extratropics, SH Extratropics, Arctic 60N-82.5N (NoPol), Antarctic 60S-82.5S (SoPol).
The remaining 3 are CONUS, CONUS+Alaska, and Australia.
*
” Shouldn’t the oceans have a much higher weight in the composite than the Land Area for various reasons? ”
3. Do you REALLY think that you need to teach the UAH team, beginning with Roy Spencer himself, how they have to construct global averages out of land and oceans?
Look at UAH’s gridded anomaly data for LT, the Lower Troposphere (the data for the three other atmospheric layers: MT, TP, LS are organized in the same way):
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/
There you see all the years since 1978, in the anomaly files tltmonamg.1978_6.0 till tltmonamg.2021_6.0.
Each file consists of 12 monthly data grids (72 latitude rows, 144 longitude columns) representing the whole Globe at a 2.5 degree resolution.
Thus, by separating latitude bands into groups and applying a land mask over the groups, UAH obtains what you see in the summary file I linked to above.
Everybody having written the software needed to do can, in addition to that, generate time series for quite different subsets of the grid, e.g. NINO3+4 aka 5S-5N — 170W-120W.
The file ‘tltmonacg_6.0’ has the same format as the anomaly files, but contains the climatology data for the reference period, here 1991-2020; that data one uses to reconstruct absolute data out of the anomalies.
*
And you come here, and feel the need to explain UAH how to do the job?
Oh dear.
Your view over the UAH world perfectly reminds me how you look at surface data…
Weiter so!
J.-P. D.
Bindy Says: The problem with people like you, CO2isLife, is that you do not have any REAL knowledge of what you are talking about.
1. How is it possible to draw conclusions out of a single month?
Really? CO2 is claimed to “trap” heat. CO2 doesn’t decrease, so that idiotic theory doesn’t allow for cooling. Those measurements aren’t 1 month values, they are relative to the long-run average, and that means that the current month is below the long-run average. CO2 has increased over that time period. How does a monthly average fall below a long-run average when CO2 has increased?
Weather. For CO2 increasing global climate temperature, watch the black line at 0 move in the top post.
CO2isLife
How many decades do you intend to keep on this simple-minded stuff?
That increasing CO2 automatically implies that temperatures have to go up everywhere: that is your simple-minded idea.
CO2 is nearly uniformly distributed, especially above the Tropopause.
But dozens of other factors – e.g. inhomogeneous land/water distribution, huge differences between the Globe’s hemispheres, volcanic effects, clouds, thermohaline circulation, etc etc – compete with CO2.
How is it possible to ignore all that, and to stay for all times on the knowledge of an 8 year old child?
You are terrifyingly boring.
Why don’t you start to learn, instead of endlessly writing you simple views, like do four or five Ignoramuses religiously pretending against all odds that the Moon can’t rotate about an internal axis?
J.-P. D.
CO2isLife said: How does a monthly average fall below a long-run average when CO2 has increased?
Same answer as before. CO2 is not the only thing modulating the atmospheric temperature. If there is something you do not understand about this statement then please ask questions.
“5 out of 7 of the UAH data sets show flat to negative warming”
When you say ‘warming’, you are suggesting a trend over time, not a monthly anomaly. Yet you are basing your POV on a single month.
Last month the baseline for the UAH data set was changed. This turned some previous months that were positive anomalies into negative anomalies, eg in 2018. Have a look.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_December_2020_v6.jpg
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_February_2021_v6.jpg
Was 2018 ‘warming’ when Roy posted the December update with the old baseline and all positive anomalies? And are those 2018 months under the line now ‘cooling’ just because the baseline has been shifted up?
I hope you see how meaningless it is to claim warming or cooling based on a single month, or whether an anomaly is negative or positive.
So let’s now look at the long term trends for those regions you say are ‘cooling’.
Tropics trend : 0.13 C/decade
USA48 trend : 0.17 C/decade
Australia trend : 0.19 C/decade
There is exactly one area with a negative trend over time in the UAH record.
Antarctic ocean : -0.02 C/decade
You keep making the same mistakes.
You keep thinking that monthly temperatures should not go up and down if the world is warming. This is just stupid. On short scales other drivers of global temperature have more power than the slow drivers like orbital variation over thousands of years or greenhouse warming over decades.
Do you imagine that as we headed into and out of ice ages that the global surface temperature monotonically rose or fell year by year?
It would seem so, because you appear to believe that the change must be monotonic – year on year in the same direction – or else it’s not happening.
Do you have any investments in shares? Do you freak out when your portfolio dives for a day?
The other mistake you make is to think the whether an anomaly is positive or negative means a hill of beans.
You could raise the baseline by 1000 C and it would still not make a jot of difference to the relative position of the anomalies, nor the trends derived therof. I could arbitrarily lower the baseline by 10C and hey presto! Now every month is ‘warming’! But nothing material has actually changed.
The baseline is arbitrary. And so is the notion that any single month tells you whether in the real world the globe is warming or cooling.
You can get the trends for all regions UAH publishes at this link.
https://tinyurl.com/y62sq3xo
Scroll down and see the decadal trend for all regions on the one page.
Also, if you’re going to look at such tiny slices of time, did you notice that Australia was at 0.52 C anomaly for January, so the February anomaly is warmer?
It’s still daft to talk about climate change on the scale of single month changes, but as there are half a dozen ways to pick apart what you said, might as well bring em to light.
A minus sign went missing.
Australia Jan : -0.52
Australia Feb : -0.27
So you post the Australia February anomaly with a minus sign and say there is no warming, but February was warmer than January.
?!
The moon rotates around its own axis and exactly as fast as it rotates around the earth. This is called coupled rotation. To put it more simply: The moon rotates around itself exactly once in a lunar month.(I could not resist:)
You’ll make a good cult member, marty.
marty
You will soon be crucified by one or more keepers of the Holy Truth.
J.-P. D.
Yeah.
The most stubborn of them was quicker!
Bindidon, you forgot your usual “Oh Noes”.
You can’t forget things like that, if you’re trying to be an intellectual.
Thank you for your support! I see there are people here with a sense of humor
The moon debate is settled it does not rotate on its own axis.
Who are you trying sell this BS to?
Whoops, WordPress left out the hyphen:
The moon debate is settled – it does not rotate on its own axis.
And its still BS. And who are you trying to sell it to? There are no buyers.
So, just to reiterate, for no particular reason:
The moon debate is settled – it does not rotate on its own axis.
True, there is no good reason. Nobody is buying this declared BS.
Once again:
The moon debate is settled it does not rotate on its own axis.
…as observed from DREMT’s location in the accelerated frame.
Stupid WordPress:
The moon debate is settled – it does not rotate on its own axis.
…as observed from the accelerated frame.
And again:
The moon debate is settled it does not rotate on its own axis.
bdgwx Says: There will undoubtedly be a correlation there. But correlation does not imply causation.
Ah, and that is the problem. You do need a correlation to prove causation however and you don’t have a correlation between CO2 and Temperatures. Correlation doesn’t prove causations, but causation does need correlation. CO2 and Temperatures don’t have the basics.
The amount of CO2 ppm added during the black line period causing climactic temperature increase in theory is the same as the global temperature actually moved up the black line.
Ball4 says: The amount of CO2 ppm added during the black line period causing climactic temperature increase in theory is the same as the global temperature actually moved up the black line.
Nice try. Take the 800,000 year Vostoc Ice Core Data, or the Greenland Holocene Ice Core Data, or the 600 million year geological record and you will find no correlation where CO2 leads Temperatures. You identify a 100 year period using “adjusted” data that matches. That is a complete joke, especially given CO2 has been rather linear, and temperatures have not.
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/temp-and-co2.gif
BTW, to prove how insane this Climate Science is, they are adjusting the Global Temp to match CO2. You get one R-Squared for CO2 vs Temp using the Global, another for the Sea, another for the Land, another for the S Hemi, another for the N Hemi, and another for the N and S Pole, and they all claim to be due to CO2. The correlation is wildly different depending on what Temp Data Set you choose. Newsflash, CO2 doesn’t cause the temperature differential between land and sea, N and S Hemi. Start looking for something else that could be causing it. That is how real science works.
“they are adjusting the Global Temp to match CO2.”
As does nature for the black climate line through 0 in the top post.
Correlation looks pretty good to me:
https://tinyurl.com/y9rqblrr
What’s your issue with this CO2IL?
barry says: Correlation looks pretty good to me:
Really, a if someone turned that into me and made that claim I would give them a F- Why?
1) Cherry Picked Time Period
2) Cherry Picke Temperature Graphic
3) The ΔCO2 and ΔW/M^2 is linear and doesn’t support the relationship the graphic implies
4)The correlation breaks down when applied to longer time periods, and differs greatly because there is no accepted Temperature Graphic (I would say Sea is a far better Temp to use if you want to isolate the impact of CO2 on temperatures, or Desert Locations)
5) It is an underspecified model that leaves out other factors that are causing the warming, and implies the CO2 is the cause
6) It shows no original, creative, or insightful understanding, and simply repeats the lies of the financially and politically conflicted “experts.”
7) Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick shows a Dog-Leg which disproves the CO2 Temp relationship. Nothing about CO2 changed in 1902 to cause a Dog-Leg
8) The oceans have been warming over that time period, so the real relationship is most likely that Temp leads CO2, a theory supported by Henry’s Law.
Once again, settle sciences don’t allow you to cherry pick conflicting data sets to make completely contradictory conclusions.
http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/temp-and-co2.gif
“most likely that Temp leads CO2”
So the global temperature goes up today knowing John Kerry is going to make another private plane trip to Iceland tomorrow.
The R^2 of CO2 and OHC is 0.984.
My source for CO2 is ESRL. https://tinyurl.com/2s2zjjr8
My source for OHC is Cheng et al. 2020. https://tinyurl.com/3sboqkgt
I don’t know, you tell me. Is 0.98 the same thing 0.00? Is 0.98 good or bad?
bdgwx, I’m not sure you understand what you did there. You just proved Henry’s Law. Warm water and you degas CO2. You are right, and you just proved that Henry’s Law is easy to demonstrate in a Lab or Natural Setting.
So, what have we established with your outstanding research?
1) Warm Water and it degasses CO2
2) Henry’s Law is easy to demonstrate through Experimentation
3) The Oceans clearly determine/regulate atmospheric CO2 levels
4) What warms the Oceans controls Atmpshieric CO2 levels
5) Visible Radiation warms the oceans, LWIR between 13 and 18µ does not
6) CO2 lags Ocean Temperatures
Bravo, great research bdgwx, we just proved Henry’s Law, and how Temperature drives CO2 not vise versa. Haven’t I been saying that all along? Thanks for proving me right once again bdgwx, bravo.
The ocean is a net sink of carbon right now. It is gaining carbon mass; not losing it.
bdgwx says: The ocean is a net sink of carbon right now. It is gaining carbon mass; not losing it.
And you know that how? Do you have pH levels for the entire ocean surface and deep? There is absolutely no way you can make that comments because the data to support such a claim simply doesn’t exist. BTW, have we had more Algae Blooms? With more CO2 in the oceans, you would expect a lot more Algae.
Doesn’t look like it:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/global-maps/MY1DMM_CHLORA
BTW, because CO2 only changes gradually, the swings in algae could be a metric for the solar radiation reaching the oceans. Algae blooms need a lot of sunlight. Sunlight is what feeds algae. Has anyone ever tied algae blooms to global warming?
Yes. pH is one line of evidence. There are others. And yes, I can make that comment because it is supported by the abundance evidence. For a brief introduction to the available evidence and relevant literature I recommend IPCC AR5 WRI chapter 3. There is an extensive bibliography at the end that you can use to drill down into the details. It is an established fact. The oceans are gaining carbon mass. This is not controversial or challenged even by the most vocal “skeptics”.
C14 levels in the deep ocean are another.
I often wonder about end points in climate graphs and why 1979 seems to be a forever anchor. Wouldn’t a point that is not from the end of the 1970s ice age scare be more appropriate? I understand it has to do with start of the satellite record but we’ve had thermometers far longer than that.
1979 is the first year of the satellite global temperature record. It’s not a choice, it’s because the quality data starts then.
Land surface records go back further, some data sets beginning in 1880, others in 1850, and one a bit earlier. The thermometer record gets sparser and sparser the further back you go, and various compilers of these data determine a cut-off where they believe there is not enough coverage of the Earth to reasonably estimate an average global temperature.
To add – the satellite record estimates the temperature of a deep swathe of the atmosphere from the ground to 12 km in height, with the weighting strongest at about 3 kilometers in height.
The surface records are of temps at 2 meters above the ground for land, and at the sea surface over the oceans.
They measure very different quantities, so they generally don’t get spiced together. There’s no need to anyway, when you can just use the land surface records if you want to go back further than 1979.
Very good question dp
There has been global warming since the mid-1970s
So using 1979 as a starting point for a trend makes global warming seem steeper than starting at a much earlier year.
That year can be disputed, because accurate CO2 measurements did not begin until 1958.
I would suggest the ramp up of CO2 levels started after 1932, after the trough of the 1929 Recession.
In the US, for example, Real GDP increased about 40 percent from 1932 through 1935 — that had to increase CO2 emissions.
Other people might choose 1940, because there was also economic weakness in the late 1930s.
And other people might choose 1950, after which there is agreement that CO2 levels began increasing at a faster rate than in earlier decades.
Whatever year is chosen as a starting point for charting CO2 and global average temperature, the optimum start year would not be 1979. CO2 levels were ramping up long before 1979.
There are temperature data before 1979 — they may not be UAH, and they may not have very good global coverage, but they do exist.
dp, if you want your head to explode, take a look at how they created the Hockeystick Graph. Also, what about the physics of the CO2 molecule changed in 1902? The further you go down that Rabbit Hole, the more convinced you will be that there are real serious problems with this “settled” science.
dp said: the 1970s ice age scare
Peterson 2008: The Myth of the 1970’s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus
https://doi.org/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
Question:
A new reference period has been introduced. What is the difference in average temperature between the old and the new reference period? So you could convert the values of one into the other.
Sorry I don’t know how these signs () got into the text.
marty
This blog has a really antiquated text processing. It either does not accept UTF-8 characters or misrepresents them.
Sometimes I recall that before posting, and copy my text into the top window of
https://mothereff.in/html-entities
and paste the result into the blog’s editor:
Characters like " ä ö ü ± "
If I don’t do that, it looks like this:
” ”
J.-P. D.
marty
You have to change monthly anomalies belonging to different reference periods by their monthly difference.
Here they are:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-january-2021-0-12-deg-c-new-base-period/#comment-607050
Rgds
J.-P. D.
As I understand it, an anomaly is always indicated by a base value. So it doesn’t matter whether I give a value from the average of 1881-1901 or 2001-2021. The ratio to the reference value is decisive. So there is also a single value by which all old values change when I introduce a new reference period. (apart from a few rounding differences)
marty
” So there is also a single value by which all old values change when I introduce a new reference period. ”
If you were right, I wouldn’t have had to display a 12 month vector.
barry explained it perfectly.
Here are the 12 month baselines for 1981-2010 resp. 1991-2020 (in K):
Jan: 263.04 263.18
Feb: 263.11 263.27
Mar: 263.30 263.43
Apr: 263.72 263.84
May: 264.32 264.45
Jun: 264.97 265.10
Jul: 265.29 265.42
Aug: 265.11 265.23
Sep: 264.47 264.64
Oct: 263.78 263.94
Nov: 263.27 263.40
Dec: 263.07 263.19
These baselines are valid for the Globe only.
J.-P. D.
The 30-year baseline is calculated for each month separately.
30 years of Januaries are averaged, and 30 years of Februaries, etc. That average becomes the zero line (baseline) for each month.
When you change the period, it is almost certain that the difference between these monthly averages will change.
Bindidon went to the trouble (as did some others) of figuring out what those differences were per month.
When it comes to changes in long-term trends because of these differences…. they are very, very negligible – on the order of tens of thousandths of a degree per decade.
Ok, so each month has its own offset. It makes it difficult to calculate.
Correct. Each month has its own offset.
To highlight the problem Climate Science Faces, NASA GISS produces all the data for those who actually understand the meaning of graphics to disprove the CO2 drives Temperature Theory.
NASA GISS Produces:
1) Land and Sea Temperature Charts
2) N & S Hemi Graphics
3) Latitude Band Graphics
4) Global Graphics
5) US Graphics
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v4/
Every one of those graphics represents temperatures from areas with identical CO2 meaning that CO2 can’t be causing the temperature differential. That is problem #1. Now, if I take CO2 and run a regression against each one of those wildly different temperature graphics I get wildly different correlations. What does that mean? It means you have an underspecified model that does not include the variables that are actually causing the warming. Take any of this Climate Science over to the economics/econometrics departments and you will be laughed out of the building. Climate Science is only considered a real science in the Climate Science Building. Unfortunatly, that building funds all other departments because that is where all the Federal Funding is going, so all the other Departments remain silent because they fear getting canceled. McCarthism Rules the campuses these days, and because of that Climate Science can’t be trusted, and will be a black mark on the history of Science.
You’ve been saying the same thing and learning nothing for months here.
The Earth is not a smooth, featureless billiard ball.
Land air temps change faster than sea surface temps because the heat capacity of water is much greater than that of air.
The Northern Hemisphere has twice the landmass of the Southern Hemisphere.
The tropics have far more humidity than the poles.
The ice in the South pole is perennial and on land. The ice at the North pole fluctuates considerably, and much of it floats on water.
Some places have a higher elevation than others.
There are different concentrations of atmospheric gases in the stratosphere at the South Pole than over the tropics (eg, much more ozone).
Ocean currents are not uniform around the world. Cold bottom waters rise in certain places, not everywhere.
Some places are arid, others humid, with differing topographies.
The land is moist in some areas and dry in others.
All these differences have impacts on local temperatures.
All this means that globally averaged changes are not represented uniformly everywhere. A warming or cooling globe will not warm or cool at the same rate everywhere. It never has, regardless if the cause is orbital varioation, volcanic dimming, or changes in solar output.
How can you not know this by now? How is it not obvious to you?
Why are you making this fundamental mistake over and over again?
Barry Says:
The Earth is not a smooth, featureless billiard ball.
Barry, Barry, Barry, the physics of the CO2 molecule does not change depending upon the shape of the earth. That is by far one of the most bizzar statements I’ve ever read.
Land air temps change faster than sea surface temps because the heat capacity of water is much greater than that of air.
Barry, Barry, Barry, the ΔW/M^2 is pretty constant, in fact it is constant for CO2. You seem to be missing the point. CO2 doesn’t cause land to cool faster than Water, CO2 doesn’t cause Cities to Trap heat. Warming you claim is due to CO2 is due to factors clearly other than CO2, you just pointed that out. Why use Global Temperaurtes to prove warming when you just proved it isn’t due to CO2?
The Northern Hemisphere has twice the landmass of the Southern Hemisphere.
The tropics have far more humidity than the poles.
Barry, Barry, Barry, all locations have 415 CO2, all locations have the back radiation W/M^2 associated with 415 CO2. You don’t seem to understand how Controled Scientific Experiments are actually designed and run. The differences you are identifying are exposed to identical CO2 related W/M^2. CO2 can’t cause that change. Note, the temperature I’m mentioning are normalized and put in reference to an average, not the absolute temperature.
There are different concentrations of atmospheric gases in the stratosphere at the South Pole than over the tropics (eg, much more ozone).
Barry, Barry, Barry, Ozone at the surface? Only in the areas corrupted by the UHI, which I’ve said should already be removed. Facts are, Deserts and Oceans are nearly ideal controls for the UHI, and Deserts for Water Vapor. Guess what? Oceans and Deserts show very little to no warming. The oceans are warming, CO2 and LWIR between 13 and 18µ won’t warm water.
All this means that globally averaged changes are not represented uniformly everywhere. A warming or cooling globe will not warm or cool at the same rate everywhere. It never has, regardless if the cause is orbital varioation, volcanic dimming, or changes in solar output.
Barry, Barry, Barry, but CO2 is constant, and you are blaming the warming on CO2. You want to spend trillions of dollars to fix something that isn’t broken, and the fix actually breaks things. I don’t see children dying drilling for oil like I see them mining for RARE earth elements. Rare earth mining pollutes far far far more than oil production.
“LWIR between 13 and 18 won’t warm water.”
Dr. Spencer experimentally proved the opposite, to a tap water depth of several inches.
Ball4 Says:“LWIR between 13 and 18 won’t warm water.”
Dr. Spencer experimentally proved the opposite, to a tap water depth of several inches.
Not to disagree with Dr. Spencer, but I’m actually running that experiment myself. To do it:
1) I’ve purchased Long Pass IR Filter to isolate the CO2 13 to 18µ LWIR
2) We will have 2 IR Transparent containers
3) We will place the containers of H20 in a dark room, sheltered from visible radiation
4) One container of H20 will be exposed to normal backradiation and normal backradiaition with additional 13 to 18µ LWIR applied through the Longpass IR FIlter
I don’t believe Dr. Spencers controlled for all the other IR wavelengths. I’m isolating the 13 to 18µ LWIR
We are also applying that 13 to 18µ LWIR to verify that it will cause faster sublimation of dry ice, but will not cause a faster melting of ice. We are also going to fill an IR transparent balloon with CO2 and apply additional IR to one but not the other.
I’ll publish the findings once we get them.
BTW, simply look at these videos NASA produces. They ddn’t even try to tie CO2 to temperatures, but temperatures surely follow clouds, water vapor and other. Once again, NASA was smart enough not to publish a CO2 video. Why? Because CO2 would basically be constant and everything else changes.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/global-maps/MODAL2_M_CLD_FR/CERES_NETFLUX_M
Be sure to show your calculation of results vs. controlled test to prove you understand the physics as did Dr. Spencer whose test was illuminated by added IR from icy cirrus cloud overnight.
“A cooling atmosphere does NOT mean that energy/heat left the planet. It just means that it left the atmosphere. It could have transferred into the ocean, land, or ice as well.”
Heat does not transfer from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface..
If it did the 2LoT would be falsified…
Energy and Heat are slightly different.
Heat is not transferred from the atmosphere to the surface, unless it is warmer than the surface, which it is on occasion, but energy is definitely transferred from the atmosphere to the surface.
And for those who are interested, there are more things heating the atmosphere than just the radiation from the surface.
So no, the second law is not falsified.
Heat can transfer from a warm atmosphere to a cooler ocean, land, or ice. A cooling atmosphere could result from heat transferring into one of these other heat reservoirs. Land, ocean, and ice can all be cooler than the atmosphere. No violation of the 2LOT here.
DREMT has already mentioned all of the things wrong with the “plates” nonsense. He’s pointed out the violations of physics. As usual, the idiots are then reduced to senseless babbling.
But another way to show them wrong is to accept their bogus solution. Then, as with the “steel greenhouse”, if we use Earth values their nonsense blows up in their faces.
So, in the 2-plate scenario, insulate one side of the blue plate. Now, using their own calculations, for the green plate to emit 240 W/m^2, the blue plate must be at 303 K, emitting 480 W/m^2.
But Earth is only at 288 K. They have proved CO2 cools the planet!
Pretty Undeniable Evidence of Fraud, and it validates many of my claims in the Past. This is how I would use this data from NASA in a court of law to prove they are compliment in a fraud: Computers and Data won’t lie, and NASA provides it:
These are the correlations between CO2 and Temp. I’ve made many comments about the Adjustments making Temp more linear so it better fits CO2. NASA’s focus is on the Global, and guess what, it has a near perfect 0.897 since 1880. Why is that a problem? The sum is greater than its parts, and that doesn’t happen with regressions. If I take a data set with an RSQ of 90 and RSQ of 40, I’ll never get an RSQ of > 90 is using a relatively random data set. (yes, I could mathematically develop 2 data sets that combined to a single data set with an RSQ or 1, but that won’t happen in normal data sets). You can observe this by taking the average of the N and S 90-64. The RSQ falls between the two. The other averages elevate RSQ. That is really odd, and smells of manipulation.
Problems with this data:
1) Global is a composite of the other data sets, if not, we have real problems.
2) Sum is greater than its parts, ie, Global has the highest RSQ
3) Best control for CO2 is 90S to 64S, and that shows no relationship with CO2, ie 0.18.
4) Note the N vs. S 90-64, you get 0.65 vs. 0.18, both have identical CO2
5) Take the RSQ between N vs. S 90-64 and you get 0.69886511, a level between the parts. That doesn’t happen with the others. The RSQ increases with the average. That smells of manipulation.
6) There are linear calculations, and ΔCO2 isn’t linearly related to ΔW/M^2, and it is W/M^2 related to Temp, not CO2.
7) Most of these RSQs are rather low, 0.72, 0.79, 0.71, 0.58, 0.65, and 0.18. This is the data that supports a “settled” science? An RSQ of 1.0 is required for a “settled” science. These numbers aren’t even close, and they require adjusted data and a relationship that isn’t supported by the physics of the CO2 molecule.
Glob 0.897206908
NHem 0.862160512
SHem 0.836729928
24N-90N 0.838420511
24S-24N 0.729269287
90S-24S 0.81035019
64N-90N 0.650217226
44N-64N 0.794359641
24N-44N 0.814572742
EQU-24N 0.719773063
24S-EQU 0.712461308
44S-24S 0.852195834
64S-44S 0.582259483
90S-64S 0.183033118
CO2 1
Ball4 says:
March 6, 2021 at 11:20 AM
Be sure to show your calculation of results vs. controlled test to prove you understand the physics as did Dr. Spencer whose test was illuminated by added IR from icy cirrus cloud overnight
Every University on the face of the earth has access to Plexiglass and LongPass IR Filters, yet no one can point me to any University that has run these very very simple experiments. Why? Climate Science rushed to an immediate conclusion without even bothering to prove that IR back radiation due to CO2 can warm H20. Once again, the only defined mechanism by which CO2 affects climate change is through the thermalization of 13 to 18µ LWIR.
People Climate Science apparently have never taken an elementary school lesson in designing controlled experiments. In 1st Grade we did the sunlight on the bean plant experiment, but Climate Scientists must have all missed that lesson.
http://peabody.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/education/Global%20Warming%20In%20A%20Jar.pdf
Ball4 Says: Perhaps you have heard of the greenhouse effect. In a greenhouse, short-wave radiation from
sunlight passes freely through the glass and is converted to long-wave radiation inside. But the
long-wave radiation cannot pass back out through the glass. The result is a build-up of heat
inside the greenhouse from the captured solar energy
You clearly don’t understand a controlled experiment, and apparently, neither does Yale University. If this is the kind of experimentation they do to prove their point, we are in serious trouble. Newsflash, glass absorbs and thermalizes IR Radiation. That is specifically why I stated to use Plexiglass and LongPass IR Filters. I am truly getting frightened reading these blog posts. Our science education must really be 3rd World quality. Even Yale doesn’t have a clue.
What relevant variable do you think Yale University leaves uncontrolled in the experiment? Hint: There is one control and one experimental variable.
CO2isLife said: yet no one can point me to any University that has run these very very simple experiments. Why?
You didn’t look very hard. Actually based on how easy it was to do a Google Scholar search and the nearly countless number of experiments quantifying water’s behavior in respond to infrared (among other wavelengths) radiation that I was able to find in a matter of minutes I’d say it is more likely you didn’t even bother to search at all. Be honest. Am I right?
bdgwx, see my post addressing the “experiment” Ball4 identified. What a joke. It highlights a level of scientific ignorance at Yale that is hard to believe. I really think to get a degree is climate science you have to be completely ignorant of the scientific method.
CO2isLife should answer the question asked by bdgwx.
bdgwx says: You didnt look very hard. Actually based on how easy it was to do a Google Scholar search and the nearly countless number of experiments quantifying waters behavior in respond to infrared
Water vapor absorbs much of the LWIR spectrum, far far far more of the LWIR than CO2 does. Point? LWIR doesn’t penetrate and warm water. Do you have any experiments that shows that 13 to 18µ does? Nope.
CO2isLife said: LWIR doesn’t penetrate and warm water. Do you have any experiments that shows that 13 to 18µ does?
13-18 um or any infrared radiation cannot penetrate water with any significant depth. That is the whole point. Water so greedily takes up the energy that nearly 100% of it is absorbed right on the skin. This is why infrared lamps are used ubiquitously in the food and restaurant industry to keep food warm. You can do the experiment yourself and easily prove that IR will warm water. And for the microphysics regarding how DWIR warms the ocean I’ll refer to this publication.
https://tinyurl.com/yuuub55n
One more example that idiot bdgwx has no understanding of the issues: “This is why infrared lamps are used ubiquitously in the food and restaurant industry to keep food warm.”
Infrared heaters emit photons with a much higher energy range than does CO2, idiot bdgwx. Put your hand close to such a heater. Touch it. You might learn something. Not all photons are the same, idiot.
Again, you present a “paper” full of nonsense. The first word of the abstract indicates “no science, none of the time”:
“Ocean warming trends are observed and coincide with the increase in concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere resulting from human activities.”
They automatically assume CO2 is warming the oceans, rather than understanding the reality. The warmer oceans are outgassing more CO2.
You can’t learn any science because you’re addicted to your cult beliefs.
“Heat is not transferred from the atmosphere to the surface, unless it is warmer than the surface,”
Thank you bob for agreeing..
I agree with you too. Heat can only transfer from a warmer body to a cooler body. There are lots of these temperature differentials especially on smaller spatial and temporal scales where heat is being transferred between land, ocean, ice, and air. These heat transfer processes ebb and flow. This is why it is best to totalize the change in heat/energy in all reservoirs to quantify the Earth energy imbalance.
I agree with you too. Heat can only transfer from a warmer body to a cooler body.
I think everyone is missing the point on this one. CO2 thermalizes 13 to 18µ LWIR. It isn’t transferring heat from hot to cold, it is converting EM Radiation to Thermalization. 13 to 18µ LWIR is consistent with -80C° Blackbody. That is why the atmosphere doesn’t fall below -80C° CO2 thermalizes the outgoing 13 to 18µ LWIR and puts in a temperature floor in the Stratosphere. What CO2 won’t do is warm the atmosphere above -80C°. 13 to 18µ also won’t melt ice.
An experiment would be to place ice in a near-vacuum and shine visible blue radiation on it. The ice will melt at a more rapid rate because it is taking cool 0.4 to 0.7µ Visible Radiation into thermal energy.
CO2isLife
I would call you on your declaration. I would call it wrong.
YOU: “What CO2 wont do is warm the atmosphere above -80C. 13 to 18 also wont melt ice.”
Venus atmosphere is 96% Carbon Dioxide. The atmosphere is quite warm and the IR emitted by this considerable.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/63/Venusatmosphere.svg/1920px-Venusatmosphere.svg.png
YOU: “13 to 18 LWIR is consistent with -80C Blackbody.”
No this is not valid, it is a wrong way to understand radiant energy emitted by a blackbody. This is just the peak radiation emitted by a blackbody at that temperature. It is not consistent with a blackbody at -80 C. A blackbody emits a Plank curve of radiant energy.
As Tim Folkerts correctly explained already (you must have ignored what he said). It is the intensity that counts. CO2 does not emit like a blackbody, it can be quite hot and only emit in the small bands of IR but the intensity of this IR can be quite large depending upon the temperature of the CO2. Maybe study Coal-Fired Boilers by Babcox and Wilcox. They will show you how much radiant energy hot CO2 emits and how not only will it melt ice, it will boil water to very high temperatures. You have to reject the stupid blog physics and crack open textbooks to learn the Truth.
Oh, this is classic! Norman “explains” physics! It doesn’t get much funnier.
Then, Norman tries to imply that CO2 heats Venus. Then he tries to imply that CO2 heats a “gas-fired” boiler!
When you call him on such nonsense, he will say “I never said CO2 was heating Venus. I never said CO2 was heating the boiler.”
He always builds in “plausible deniability”. And of course, he mentions Folkerts, believing that will give him some credibility. Two idiots aren’t any smarter than one idiot.
(See why this is so much fun?)
Norman says: No this is not valid, it is a wrong way to understand radiant energy emitted by a blackbody. This is just the peak radiation emitted by a blackbody at that temperature. It is not consistent with a blackbody at -80 C. A blackbody emits a Plank curve of radiant energy.
Norman, you clearly don’t know what you are talking about. Yes, CO2 isn’t a blackbody IT EMITS FAR LESS OF THE SPECTRUM!!! CO2 is only a fraction of a black body that emits -80C. Use an IR spectrometer and you will measure it as -80C, but that is because of the peak wavelength, but in reality, it isn’t emitting anywhere near the energy of a black body, it emits far far less.
Ice emits 11µ, so if 15µ could melt ice, ice would melt itself.
CO2isLife
Actually I do know what I am talking about. You are the one confused by the blog physics.
Here:
https://tinyurl.com/5x5kh6ep
With no water vapor overlap the emissivity of CO2 in our atmosphere is around 0.2 (20 percent of a blackbody)
Use this calculator:
https://tinyurl.com/es9sfhtd
Put in 0.2 for the emissivity and vary the temperature. You will find CO2 is able to emit quite a bit of energy. CO2 will emit far less than a blackbody at the same temperature but CO2 at 500 K (440 F) will emit far greater energy than CO2 at 193 K.
CO2isLife
CO2 does not just emit as a blackbody at -80 C, it emits based upon its temperature following the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.
Also I am not implying CO2 heats a gas-fired boiler. The CO2 is heated by chemical reaction. But the heated CO2 transfers radiant energy to the boiler tubes. Read up on it, they calculate values in Babcock & Wilcox Steam book. It is a very large quantity of energy.
https://tinyurl.com/965vxb93
You can download an older copy of Steam for free. Read up on radiant heat transfer in a boiler. They even work through a problem.
Norman, you are confused by the links you found. The troposphere is not at a temperature of 500K!
And CO2 is not the heat source for a boiler. CO2 AND the boiler are heated by the combustion of the fuel. The CO2 for combustion did not even exist before combustion. It, and the combustion energy, were created at the same time.
Typo alert: The CO2 from combustion did not even exist before combustion
“13 to 18 LWIR is consistent with -80C Blackbody. “
Please! Stop this nonsense.
Yes, a blackbody at -80C emits most strongly near 15 m.
But …
* a non black body at -80C could emit most strongly at other wavelengths.
* a non black body at other temperature could emit most strongly in this range.
CO2 is definitely NOT a blackbody. Pretending that the ideals for a BB apply here is simply wrong.
15 LWIR is consistent with CO2 of any temperature.
You miss the point, TF.
A 15μ photon is a VERY low energy photon. Billions of such photons could not melt an ice cube.
(Now you can mention your “CO2 laser”, revealing once more your ignorance.)
And yet 15micron laser photons melt steel.
“A 15μ photon is a VERY low energy photon. Billions of such photons could not melt an ice cube.”
Depends on how many billions and how big the ice cube is.
Doesn’t it Moron?
“A 15μ photon is a VERY low energy photon. Billions of such photons could not melt an ice cube.”
Yet, oddly enough the much lower energy photons generated by my microwave oven are able to melt ice cubes!
The moron theories lose again. That makes three this week.
I got a response from all 3 trolls.
Ball4 went with the CO2 laser, Nate with the microwave oven, and bob just peed all over himself, as usual.
And yet your ‘theory’ still proves wrong and dumb.
” Once again, the only defined mechanism by which CO2 affects climate change is through the thermalization of 13 to 18 LWIR. ”
You forgot to mention DWLR and the raised tropopause.
ET Says: You forgot to mention DWLR and the raised tropopause.
1) DWLR is the mechanism I defined
2) Raised Tropause? Evidence? What impact does that have other than speed cooling of the stratosphere? How does that impact the surface?
ET, just how high do you think 0.64 W/M^2 lift the Tropopause? How much does it shift on a rainy or cloudy day?
You’d need to back calculate.
IPCC estimate that a net extra 3.7W/m^2 raises surface temperature 1C.
0.64W/m^2 would raise surface temperature by 0.64/3.7 = 0.17C.
To get that much surface warming would require raising the troposphere by 0.17/6.5 times 1000 = 25.6 metres.
Pure nonsense, Ent.
You’ve lost touch with reality, AGAIN.
ET: IPCC estimate that a net extra 3.7W/m^2 raises surface temperature 1C.
Really? Looking up from the surface, CO2 increasing from 0 to 415 added 7.85 W/M^2. Adding Water Vapor adds 279.65 W/M^2. That means water vapor added about 70C°. CO2, maybe 2C°.
A single cloudy day can add 80.7 W/M^2, so that Tropopause must be swinging all over the place. 25.6 meters for 0.64, so we must be talking real big numbers for a cloudy day.
The tropopause is the altitude band at which greenhouse gas molecules are widely spaced enough that their radiation can escape to space. If you send up a radiosonde you can identify the tropopause as the minimum temperature altitude.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_temperature#/media/File%3AComparison_US_standard_atmosphere_1962.svg
Lapse rate lowers the temperature as you rise through the troposphere and ozone raises the temperature as you rise into the stratosphere. IIRC, increasing the concentration of CO2 raises the altitude at which 13-17 micrometres radiation starts to escape to space, without changing the radiating temperature.
This feeds back to the surface through the lapse rate and increases the surface temperature.
A simplified worked example. Tropopause is at 10km, tropopause temperature is 233K and lapse rate is 6.5K/km.
Surface temperature is 233 plus 10 times 6.5 = 233 plus 65 = 298K.
Raise the tropopause 100m. Surface temperature becomes 233 plus 10.1 times 6.5 = 233 plus 65 .7 = 298.7C.
Raising the tropopause 100 metres has raised the surface temperature 0.7C.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/301/5632/479.abstract
“This feeds back to the surface through the lapse rate and increases the surface temperature.”
Pure nonsense.
EM,
All radiation escapes to space at night. That is why the surface and the atmosphere cools.
Your worked example is a work of fantasy.
“All radiation escapes to space at night. That is why the surface and the atmosphere cools.”
That is also why when temperatures fall below the previous low temperature that any claim that CO2 “traps heat” is proven to be pure nonsense. GW Alarmists don’t seem to understand that radiation travels at the speed of light. Radiation is by far the fastest way to REMOVE energy from the system as opposed to convection and conduction. GW ALarmists always seem to forget those other two ways of storing and transferring heat. All CO2 does is slightly inhibit the release of a very very small amount of energy associated with the 13 to 18µ wavelengths. That is literally it, and then claim that it can cause catastrophic consequences.
“That is literally it, and then claim that it can cause catastrophic consequences. ”
I notice that WUWT refers to the Texas blackouts as catastrophic.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/03/06/the-catastrophic-texas-blackouts-lessons-for-the-developing-countries/
Yes Ent, extreme cold can indeed be catastrophic.
Especially with no electricity….
Also, all radiation escapes to space during the day, I wonder if Swenson has any coherent thinking to offer.
bobdroege
Oooh. I understand your problem.
It seems you didn’t know until now that LWIR photons, like bats, are only active at night.
Your knowledge has just experienced what Planck named a ‘Quantensprung’.
J.-P. D.
Yes, but all the 511 KeV photons escape during the day, that’s why we make them at night.
Norman Says: With no water vapor overlap the emissivity of CO2 in our atmosphere is around 0.2 (20 percent of a blackbody)
Once again Norman, you clearly don’t understand the basics:
1) CO2 isn’t CO2 and Water
2) Water vapor is present with or without CO2, and H20 absorbs the same wavelengths as CO2, the reverse is not true, CO2 does not absorb all the wavelengths of H20, not even close
3) The only wavelengths associated with the GHG and CO2 are 13 to 18µ very long wavelength very low energy IR radiation that does not penetrate or warm water.
4) Remove CO2 from the atmosphere and water vapor would easily absorb all the LWIR between 13 and 18µ that CO2 would have.
5) You can test this on MODTRAN. The first time you even see the CO2 signature is up over 3km after H20 starts to precipitate out of the atmosphere.
6) The net effect of CO2 to the atmosphere is to PREVENT THE ATMOSPHERE FROM COOLING below -80C° CO2 puts a floor in temperatures, it doesn’t warm anything. 13 to 18µ won’t even melt ice, let alone warm water.
Norman Says: Norman Says: With no water vapor overlap the emissivity of CO2 in our atmosphere is around 0.2 (20 percent of a blackbody)
That isn’t even close to true.
1) Remove all GHGs from the atmosphere and you get 443.682 W/M^2
2) Add 415 PPM CO2 and you get 400.35 W/M^2 or about 10%
3) Add only H2O and you get 339.12 W/M^2 far surpassing what CO2 absorbs
4) Add CO2 and H2O to the atmosphere and you get 306.935 W/M^2, so in reality, CO2 adds less than 10% when adjusted for H2O, and CO2’s influence shows a log decay, so adding more won’t really budge those numbers. Adding more H2O does however dramatically add energy. A simple cloud layer add 80W/M^2 or more to the system, easily negating any additional input from CO2.
BTW, that above example is misleading because it is from 70km looking down. In reality, if you lower things down to the Troposphere CO2 doesn’t add anything of significance. CO2 only adds to the atmosphere AFTER H2O precipitates out.
Looking down from 3km:
1) Add H20 and you get 399.722 W/m2
2) Add CO2 and H2O and you get 396.268 W/m2
In other words, CO2’s contribution is well within the normal variability of the climate, and its real impact is less than 1%, not the 10% the IR Spectrum would imply.
In other words, CO2’s contribution is well within the normal variability of the weather, not climate.
Weather avg.d: red and blue lines top post.
Climate avg.d: placement of black line through zero top post.
CO2isLife
Before you suggest my point is not even close to true you will have to show support for your equations.
I can show you my support.
A Blackbody at 300 K will emit 459.27 W/m^2
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
Using the MODTRAN tool, setting all values to zero except having CO2 at 415 PPM using Tropical Atmosphere with altitude at zero and looking up the calculator gives a DWIR of 81.357 W/m^2.
81.457/459.27 comes out to 0.177 Which is not far from 0.20. CO2 contributes around 10% when water vapor is added. The emissivity of the atmosphere with GHG’s is around 0.9 or so.
So you need to provide support for you numbers.
Atm. around 0.7 in the dry arctic regions; avg. is about 0.8 emissivity looking up from surface globally.
Norman:
I can show that CO2 only transfers just over 2% of the value of the water vapour at the tropics. Depends what you put first; chicken or egg ie the overlap issue .
In your Modtran example start with BOTH water vapour (1) and CO2 (415ppm). DWIR is abt 367 Wm-2
Now remove the CO2 (0); New H2O only DWIR is abt 359 or 8 difference (so CO2 was only abt 2.2% of the H2O+CO2 effect).
It would be hard for CO2 to get a look in in the tropics.
Extremely easy experiment everyone can run to prove the points I’ve been trying to make.
1) I’ve claimed that back-radiation from CO2 from 13 to 18µ LWIR won’t melt ice, and therefore can’t warm water.
2) I’ve claimed that visible radiation warms water, not 13 to 18µ
3) Experts on this blog have repeatedly disagreed with me
4) None have provided valid scientific experiments to prove their point
Facts:
1) The atmosphere outside my house has 415 PPM CO2
2) The earth outside is > -80°C and therefore is emitting 13 to 18µ
3) CO2 is absorbing that 13 to 18µ, and radiating part of it back to Earth
4) There is plenty 13 to 18µ being transmitted in the atmosphere, in fact, the earth in my area is emitting IR near 10.5 or 11µ peak, basically 0.00°C
Now what is the experiment that a 2nd Grader could understand that the experts fail to understand?
Park your car in a place that is in a shadow that disappears as the sun rises. What you will see if you go out and sit in your car in the early Morning is this:
1) Frost, frozen water, ice, will cover your front windshield
2) That frost is exposed to 13 to 18µ LWIR and that radiation isn’t melting the Frost
3) As the shadow recedes, high-energy radiation will fall on the frost. The frost will immediately melt even though the air temp is the same across the windshield. Only the part of the window exposed to visible radiation melts the frost, the 13 to 18µ LWIR doesn’t melt the frost.
As I’ve said countless times, if 13 to 18µ could warm water, ice would melt itself. The reason is simple. Ice emits 10.5µ LWIR. That means that ice also emits 13 to 18µ LWIR. How could ice emit a wavelength associated with temperatures above the freezing point? It can’t. Funny how the experts haven’t been able to figure that one out, and how to demonstrate it like I have in the above experiment.
Where are the “experts” refuting my experiment?
“How could ice emit a wavelength associated with temperatures above the freezing point?”
Wavelengths are not associated with temperature is a fatal flaw for your experiment.
The experts? Don’t need to be particularly expert; HS physics study will suffice to dispel some CO2isLife assertions.
CO2isLife: “4) None have provided valid scientific experiments to prove their point”
Dr. Spencer has done so. Several times. Yale University has done so. Multiple sources on the internet and google scholar have done so. CO2isLife is the only one that hasn’t done any valid scientific experiments to prove any points or researched the existing databases well enough.
“Park your car in a place that is in a shadow that disappears as the sun rises. What you will see if you go out and sit in your car in the early Morning is this:” I have done just that and found:
1) No frost at all, no ice covering my windshield
Every day experimental evidence differs from CO2isLife assertions.
“As Ive said countless times, if 13 to 18 (micron) could warm water, ice would melt itself.”
If the water doesn’t warm while absorbing radiative transfer increasing its thermodynamic internal energy, you have found a violation of 1LOT AND 2LOT. Your experiment should be controlled & sensitive enough to disprove these theories.
Oh by the way, ice in my refrig. is exposed to 13 to 18 micron radiation and it doesn’t melt itself & yet radiation from that band warms water in certain controlled experiments that Dr. Spencer has performed.
Let me ask CO2isLife: If my instrumentation records a photon in the 13 to 18 micron range, out in the day time natural wild atmosphere, how does CO2isLife go about proving the 13 to 18 micron photon came from 1) high cirrus icy clouds or 2) the sun?
CO2isLife: 4) None have provided valid scientific experiments to prove their point
Dr. Spencer has done so. Several times. Yale University has done so. Multiple sources on the internet and google scholar have done so. CO2isLife is the only one that hasnt done any valid scientific experiments to prove any points or researched the existing databases well enough.
I’ve pointed out the flaws in those approaches, and none of them come close to the clarity of the experiment that I’ve just outlined. The Yale Experiment is a complete joke. Dr. Spencer’s doesn’t isolate the effect of 13 to 18µ LWIR.
You have nothing to say to refute the simple experiment that I outlined, absolutely nothing, and a 2 year old can understand the results of my experiment.
Park your car in a place that is in a shadow that disappears as the sun rises. What you will see if you go out and sit in your car in the early Morning is this: I have done just that and found:
1) No frost at all, no ice covering my windshield
Every day experimental evidence differs from CO2isLife assertions.
That is completely idiotic and childish. Simply wait until there is frost on your windshield and perform the experiment. If you live in an area where there is never frost, then you are out of luck.
If the water doesnt warm while absorbing radiative transfer increasing its thermodynamic internal energy, you have found a violation of 1LOT AND 2LOT. Your experiment should be controlled & sensitive enough to disprove these theories.
You clearly don’t understand physics.
1) The radiation has to reach something to warm it, LWIR between 13 and 18µ doesn’t penetrate water.
2) 13 and 18µ LWIR if anything cause endothermic surface evaporation and cooling of the surface much like sweat does to a human body
3) 13 and 18µ LWIR is associated with -80°C, so it isn’t warming much if at all, and that is the entire Blackbody spectrum, and CO2 isn’t a black body, not even close.
CO2isLife: “I’ve pointed out the flaws in those approaches”
You have not experimentally done so, there are no flaws physically pointed out. Put some supposed flaws on trial, controlled for experimentally.
“Simply wait until there is frost on your windshield and perform the experiment.”
Oh so sometimes there is no frost agreeing with me; CO2isLife backs down from earlier comments.
“1) The radiation has to reach something to warm it, LWIR between 13 and 18 doesn’t penetrate water.”
Instruments show it isn’t all reflected nor transmitted so what happens to it? LWIR just vanishes? Actually, ocean water is so good at absorbing such radiation, the incident overhead LWIR is maybe 95% absorbed in a very short distance of water depth (in addition to being maybe 5% reflected) as Dr. Spencer has shown to a surface water depth of several inches with added LWIR warming the water a bit as measured by thermometer.
“13 and 18 LWIR if anything cause endothermic surface evaporation”
CO2isLife debunks CO2isLife 1): LWIR now does penetrate water surface, energy contained in LWIR photons doesn’t simply vanish.
“13 and 18 LWIR is associated with -80C”
13 to 18 micron photons can come from the sun as measured at the surface of Earth. The sun is thought to be a bit warmer than -80C: again, how does CO2isLife go about proving the 13 to 18 micron photon came from 1) high cirrus icy clouds or 2) the sun?
“Simply wait until there is frost on your windshield and perform the experiment.”
Oh so sometimes there is no frost agreeing with me; CO2isLife backs down from earlier comments.
DREMPTY,
“That’s not a solution, bob, that’s just you making the same mistakes again, that we have already been through.”
Here is the place for you to tell me what mistakes I have made in getting the solution 244, 290, 244.
Don’t make any mistakes.
Yes we have been through all the mistakes the DREAM TEAM has made, but they are dreaming if they think they understand.
Been there, done that, up-thread.
No you haven’t DREMT.
I have the correct solution and you haven’t found any mistakes.
The mistakes are all yours.
Incorrect.
The GPE is settled in favor of Eli. The moon rotates on its own axis was settled by Tesla’s momentum analysis of wheel and ball M assembly.
Incorrect.
The blue plate heats and the Moon turns.
Incorrect..
Here’s a few of DREMTY mistakes
The green plates are not an energy source themselves, they only receive energy from the blue plate.
and the energy sent back cannot further increase the temperature of the blue plate.
It is impossible because there is no additional energy to warm the blue plate. Are you a moron? You should be attempting to explain how it is possible, not asking me to explain the obvious.
Name a real-life scenario where breaking an object into three pieces makes the middle piece increase in temperature.
Were not talking about insulation, bob. Were talking about separating three identical objects.
Nonsense, bob. The green plates are no more losing energy on the side facing the blue plates when they are separated than they were when they were pressed together.
We know at equilibrium, Q should be zero (as temperatures are not fixed, only the electrical input of 400 W to the central blue plate) so rearrange the equation:
No error. Heat flow tends towards zero wherever possible, and with this idealized thought experiment, it is indeed possible.
Wrong. There does not have to be heat flow between the plates.
The only thing that changes on separation is the mode of energy transfer between the plates. Why cant you people get it through your heads that splitting an object into three does not result in the middle section spontaneously rising in temperature by 46 K!?
bob, there doesnt need to be heat flow between the plates when they are separated in order to drive energy through the system. The required 400 W is already leaving the system to space by virtue of the green plates being at 244 K. You see, energy flows via radiation without need of a temperature difference, simply because all objects radiate based on their temperature and emissivity.
I can also confirm from a lifetime of occasionally separating objects from other objects that I have never observed any spontaneous warming of the central object.
And here’s one thing he got right
If there was heat flow from blue to green, the green plates would be warming up.
I stand by everything I have said…and you certainly have not shown why any of it is wrong.
Interesting that you agree that if there was heat flow from blue to green, the green plates would be warming up. So you acknowledge that there is no heat flow between the plates at steady state. Good, that’s a start.
No I don’t moron, the green plates only heat up in the transition from the moment the plates are separated, until steady state is reached.
And at steady state there is heat flow from the heater to the blue plate, from the blue plate to the green plates and from the green plates to space.
But you say there is no heat flow from the blue plate to the green plate, which is wrong moron.
Heat has to flow every step.
bob, you have agreed that if there was heat flow from blue to green, the green plates would be warming up. If the green plates are warming up, they cannot be at steady state. Therefore you agree that there is no heat flow between the plates at steady state.
No Moron,
There can still be heat flow at steady state, in fact there has to be, in order for the heat from the heater to get to space.
Moron.
The green plates are not warming up at steady state, they only warm up on the way to steady state.
You know when you perturb the system that is at steady state by separating the plates.
It takes time after you separate the plates for the system to return to steady state.
Moron.
bob, there can be heat flow between objects at steady state, like for instance if the temperature of the objects are fixed in some way. But, the temperature of the plates are not fixed. So, for there to be heat flow between the plates, the green plates would have to be warming, and hence not at steady state.
DREMTPY
You have fixed the temperatures of the green and blue plates, declared your solution the one true path of GOD.
The only requirement for heat flow in a radiative situation is a temperature difference.
Since there has to be heat flow through the plates in order for the energy to leave the system from the green plates, there has to be a temperature difference.
The real GOD ruled in favor of Eli.
“You have fixed the temperatures of the green and blue plates”
No, the plate temperatures are not fixed. That’s the point, as I just explained. And, the required 400 W of energy is leaving the system simply by virtue of the green plates being at 244 K. There does not need to be heat flow between the plates.
“And, the required 400 W of energy is leaving the system simply by virtue of the green plates being at 244 K. There does not need to be heat flow between the plates.”
If I, again, with NO EXPLANATION, ignore the reality that the Green plate will COOL DOWN if it is emitting heat to space but not also receiving heat from a source at the same rate.
And it IS receiving heat from a source at the same rate. From the warmer BP.
Its just simple logic and common sense, but the TEAM fails to apply it at every opportunity.
And again, 1LOT is absolutely clear, ANY energy transferred here by radiation is none other than HEAT TRANSFER.
“The real GOD ruled in favor of Eli.”
Erm…OK, bob.
Your comment from two years ago happens to be in accord with ClintR’s 1:15 PM comment, and helps debunk the GPE.
DREMT gets it right, bob. You don’t have the background to understand.
Yeah, I do, I have taken courses in thermodynamics in Navy Nuc School and at a university.
you two morons haven’t
You don’t have a clue bob, as evidenced by your stupid comments.
No training in thermodynamics eh, ClintR?
Moron.
Another way to show how bob doesn’t understand thermodynamics is to consider the “heat content” of each plate.
All plates are identical so they have the same mass (m) and the same specific heat capacity (C). Before separation, at equilibrium, each plate has 244*m*C Joules. Or 3*244*m*C = 732mC Joules, for the total.
In the idiot solution of the 3-plates, after separation the total energy content would be 244mC + 290mC + 244mC = 778mC Joules.
So the energy in the plates went up, with no additional energy incoming. The idiot solution creates energy from nothing!
bob, and the other idiots, don’t understand thermodynamics!
Well, some insulating space was added, Clint R has neglected to include that in his prose – which would be found from experiment. The GPE is settled in the favor of Eli.
Remember this comment, Ball4?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2019-0-36-deg-c/#comment-345722
ClintR,
You no take physics!
You no take thermo!
You no take candle!
You Moron.
DREMT, the GPE is settled in the favor of Eli. The moon rotates on its own axis, settled with wheel/ball M momentum mechanics. You are left out in the cold. Carry on aimlessly.
Ball4, you wrote:
"JD’s separated version would have the middle (blue) plate increasing in temperature with no change in incoming or outgoing energy, which IS a clear violation of 1LOT law of physics, typical for JD as an entertainment specialist:
244K…290..244K"
Agreeing with ClintR’s 1:15 PM comment.
The GPE though is settled in the favor of Eli, not Clint R here for entertainment only.
You wrote what you wrote, and thus agree that the GPE is debunked.
“So the energy in the plates went up, with no additional energy incoming.”
Oh darn, a moron forgot about the 400 J/s coming into the system, again.
Nate got burned by his microwave oven. Now he shows he can’t understand energy accounting!
Typical…when the idiots don’t understand physics.
DREMT wanders in aimlessly. What I wrote debunked JD, and thus agreed that the GPE is settled in favor of Eli.
No, Ball4, what you wrote supported JD, at the time. You had obviously got yourself confused because you wrote the comment like you were contradicting him, but actually what you said supported his arguments.
Your comment is in accord with the point made by ClintR above.
For all the dimwits
“So the energy in the plates went up, with no additional energy incoming. The idiot solution creates energy from nothing!”
Not from nothing moron, when the plates are separated, the temperature of the green plates go down, because they are receiving 200 watts but emitting 400 watts.
So less energy emitted means the temperature of the blue plate goes up.
Morons.
Oh yes, this is your wonderful theory that when the mode of energy transfer switches from conduction to radiation, the green plates suddenly require twice as much energy to remain at the same temperature…
The team won’t understand that bob; they obviously don’t even understand my debunking of JD earlier & that the GPE is long settled in favor of Eli.
Ball4 wrote:
"JD’s separated version would have the middle (blue) plate increasing in temperature with no change in incoming or outgoing energy, which IS a clear violation of 1LOT law of physics, typical for JD as an entertainment specialist:
244K…290..244K"
Agreeing with ClintR’s 1:15 PM comment.
Yes DRMETPY moron,
“Oh yes, this is your wonderful theory that when the mode of energy transfer switches from conduction to radiation, the green plates suddenly require twice as much energy to remain at the same temperature”
That is because, moron, conduction is so much better at transferring heat, moron.
Clint R the moron and idiot,
Next time it is kind of chill wherever you are.
Turn you furnace and set it to 70 F.
Open all the windows and doors in the house, wait a while for temperature to stabilize, write it down with your crayon.
The close all the windows and see if the temperature goes up.
If it is not winter, try it with your AC.
You see dumbass, the temperature is not solely determined by the amount of heat entering the system.
If you weren’t a dumbass, moronic idiot, and if you had studied any physics or thermodynamics, you would know that.
Or we’ve got “your wonderful theory that when the mode of energy transfer switches from conduction to radiation” nothing changes at all!
Because?? Because thats what the TEAM feels should happen based on no known theory or common sense, just their feeling.
Meanwhile kindergarteners have enough sense to know that heat transfer thru contact between fingers and hot things produces a totally DIFFERENT result from heat transfer by non-contact between fingers and hot things.
Why the TEAM doesnt have this sense is truly a mystery.
And we have the new DREMT invention of thermal energy transfer without a temperature difference!
HVAC people would be very excited about this.
No need for those bulky exterior AC units with coils and fans anymore! Just need parallel plates in vacuum!
Also gamers will be super excited. They no longer will need water-cooling gadgets for their over-clocked processors on their gaming PCs.
They’ll simply need to attach parallel plates in a vacuum, and they’ll magically remove as much thermal energy as their processors can produce, with no temperature rise at all!
“That is because, moron, conduction is so much better at transferring heat, moron.”
There is no heat being transferred between the plates when they are at the same temperature, bob, regardless of whether they are pressed together or separated. As you have already agreed, if there was heat flow from blue to green, the green plates would be warming up.
There can be heat flow between objects at steady state, like for instance if the temperature of the objects are fixed in some way. But, the temperature of the plates are not fixed. So, for there to be heat flow between the plates, the green plates would have to be warming, and hence not at steady state.
“As you have already agreed, if there was heat flow from blue to green, the green plates would be warming up.”
Why do you say things that make no sense?
Why would the Green plates be WARMING when they are obviously emitting heat to space?????
Why would any sane person IGNORE the emitted heat of the GP?
“There can be heat flow between objects at steady state, like for instance if the temperature of the objects are fixed in some way.”
The temperatures of the plates , up steady at 290 and 244 K. Thus there is heat flow between them! Nobody is required to FIX the temps, that is taken care of by physics.
“But, the temperature of the plates are not fixed. So, for there to be heat flow between the plates, the green plates would have to be warming, and hence not at steady state.”
Wha???
Who says so?
The RHT equation simply requires a temp difference between the objects, as do all heat transfer equations. There is NO requirement of a CHANGING temperature.
“You see dumbass, the temperature is not solely determined by the amount of heat entering the system.”
The only thing that changes when you separate the plates is that the mode of energy transfer switches from conduction to radiation. You need the energy in or out of the system to change, so you try to argue that when separated, the green plates cool so that there is less energy leaving the system, and as a result the blue plate warms. But, there is no reason for the green plates to cool on separation. There are no radiative losses past the edges of the plates, because view factors are treated as 1 between the plates.
The things that change when you separate the plates is that the mode of energy transfer switches from conduction to radiation and an insulating vacuum gap is added. So, there is a reason for the green plates to cool on separation; thermos bottles employ that same sort of gap.
DREMT is really out of depth in thermodynamics. The GPE was settled in favor of Eli long ago.
Two things about that, Ball4:
1) It is called the “Green Plate Effect”, and not the “Vacuum Gap Effect”. Any warming effect of the blue plate is meant to be due to back-radiation from the green plates, and not due to an insulative effect of a vacuum gap. You are shifting the goalposts.
2) You have already supported ClintR’s 1:15 PM comment in a comment from two years ago, and thus support the idea that the GPE is debunked. The only alternative is that you state you were mistaken two years ago.
GPE is Eli’s construct DREMT & settled in the favor of Eli. The separation of a plate with a vacuum gap is not Eli’s construct.
I’ve debunked JD not GPE. Please at least try to stay on the same page or the abbreviations are too much for you to handle as well as is thermodynamics.
“GPE is Eli’s construct DREMT & settled in the favor of Eli. The separation of a plate with a vacuum gap is not Eli’s construct.”
The three-plate scenario is a direct extension of his logic. That it shows his logic leads to absurd conclusions is why it debunks the GPE.
“I’ve debunked JD not GPE. Please at least try to stay on the same page or the abbreviations are too much for you to handle as well as is thermodynamics.”
Forget about JD. Your comment from two years ago supports ClintR’s 1:15 PM comment and thus the idea that the GPE is debunked. The only alternative is that you state you were mistaken two years ago.
Unfortunately for DREMT, I’ve debunked the absurd 3 plate conclusions because they are, well, absurd.
Clint R moniker wasn’t around two years ago, back then I debunked JD’s absurd claim in the link YOU provided. So sure, forget about that link of yours. The GPE was way back then settled in favor of Eli.
“But, there is no reason for the green plates to cool on separation”
Again more declarations without evidence.
The RHTE gives the initial heat flow B to G, upon separation. Since the temperatures are equal, there is 0 heat flow, but the GP continues to emit heat to space.
By 1LOT, GP:
DeltaU = Qnet = -200 W.
DeltaU is decreasing. It must cool.
It is none other than the laws of physics, which you ever ignore, that requires the green plates to cool.
Enough handwaving BS about your feelings.
“I’ve debunked the absurd 3 plate conclusions because they are, well, absurd.”
Yes, you have already written that the 244 K…290 K…244 K solution is absurd, here:
"JD’s separated version would have the middle (blue) plate increasing in temperature with no change in incoming or outgoing energy, which IS a clear violation of 1LOT law of physics, typical for JD as an entertainment specialist:
244K…290..244K"
Agreeing with ClintR’s 1:15 PM comment. Thank you for your assistance.
244 290 244 works. It satisfies the laws of physics. 1LOT 2LOT the RHTE. Kirchoffs Law.
Your whining that it somehow feels absurd, is simply that, a feeling, not based on any logic or law of physics.
Meanwhile your guessed ‘solution’ has two or three separated objects in space, one heated, ending up at the same temperature.
That is actually absurd. Ask someone with common sense.
Your notion that thermal energy can be transferred without a temperature difference violates 2LOT and RHTE, and is actually absurd.
But keep on promoting absurdity. Who cares.
You only look more and more foolish.
Well, Ball4 agrees with ClintR’s 1:15 PM comment, bob’s gone quiet, and the only other contributor to this thread is my stalker that I no longer respond to, so I guess that’s that.
DREMTPY
Sorry I don’t speak gibberish
“There can be heat flow between objects at steady state, like for instance if the temperature of the objects are fixed in some way. But, the temperature of the plates are not fixed. So, for there to be heat flow between the plates, the green plates would have to be warming, and hence not at steady state.”
Yes the temperatures of the plates are not fixed, therefore they can change, like they do when the green plates are separated from the blue plate.
When the plates are separated the green plates start cooling, and also being warmed by the blue plate.
See if you can understand why that happens and provide a response other than gibberish.
bob, for there to be heat flowing from the blue plates to the green plates, the green plates would have to be warming up. I don’t know how much simpler I can make it. Heat flows between two objects when one of the objects is warming up, yes?
Heat can flow permanently between two objects, if those objects are fixed at certain temperatures so that there is a constant thermal gradient between them. Otherwise, and it applies here because the plate temperatures are not fixed, heat flow between objects tends towards zero as much as possible. When the plates are separated, heat flow between them is zero. So it will remain that way.
A permanent thermal gradient is not going to spontaneously develop between the plates just because you want it to.
DREMT 6;21 pm is so confused, as usual, since JD that I debunked was banned from this blog long ago so “Agreeing with ClintR’s 1:15 PM comment.” using a comment out of context I made before Clint R moniker ever showed up is simply wrong, a waste of time. See my 1:30 pm comment response to Clint R 1:15pm.
DREMTPY,
“But, there is no reason for the green plates to cool on separation.”
Yes there is, conduction is different from radiation.
So you have to recalculate.
Which you haven’t done.
There is a long list of things you haven’t done to support your gibberish.
So explain the correct context for your remark that:
"JD’s separated version would have the middle (blue) plate increasing in temperature with no change in incoming or outgoing energy, which IS a clear violation of 1LOT law of physics, typical for JD as an entertainment specialist:
244K…290..244K"
and explain in what way it is not in agreement with ClintR’s 1:15 PM comment.
DREMPTY,
Moron, let’s get that out of the way first.
“bob, for there to be heat flowing from the blue plates to the green plates, the green plates would have to be warming up. I dont know how much simpler I can make it. Heat flows between two objects when one of the objects is warming up, yes?”
Nope, there is heat flow from the blue to the green after separation when steady conditions return, it takes a while, the blue plate has to get to 290 and the green plate has to return to 244.
I can’t make it any clearer, no, one object does not have to be warming up for there to be heat flow from another object to that object. I’ll reemphasize.
“Heat flows between two objects when one of the objects is warming up, yes?”
Maybe, but it is absolutely not required for an object to be warming up for there to be heat flow. The plates together is a good example of that.
“Heat can flow permanently between two objects, if those objects are fixed at certain temperatures so that there is a constant thermal gradient between them. Otherwise, and it applies here because the plate temperatures are not fixed, heat flow between objects tends towards zero as much as possible. When the plates are separated, heat flow between them is zero. So it will remain that way.”
Heat can flow between two objects, but your conditions are gibberish. They can flow between two objects even if the objects are at the same temperature, which the green and blue plates are at the same temperature before separation, and yes there is heat flow from blue to green before separation. Heat flow tends towards zero, yes, but not when there is a constant source of energy, which there is in this problem both before and after separation.
Yes, at the moment of separation, heat flow between the plates stops, but not for long, because immediately at that point the blue plate starts heating up and the green plate starts cooling down. Eventually the green plates heat up and return to 244.
“A permanent thermal gradient is not going to spontaneously develop between the plates just because you want it to.”
It’s not because I want it to, it’s because I did the system analysis and calculated the temperatures and heat flows.
You did not do that, you handed in an empty sheet of paper.
8:07 pm: That’s your work to explain DREMT, YOU selected a single past comment out of a thread no doubt. The context is presumably available to you. Go for it. Explaining the context properly in your own words might help you learn about thermo. but that’s a stretch.
“Moron, let’s get that out of the way first.”
I’ve never known a person so upset that I asked them once if they were a moron. Sheesh.
“Nope, there is heat flow from the blue to the green after separation when steady conditions return, it takes a while, the blue plate has to get to 290 and the green plate has to return to 244.”
Wrong, as previously explained.
“I can’t make it any clearer, no, one object does not have to be warming up for there to be heat flow from another object to that object. I’ll reemphasize.”
I’m not saying it has to be warming up. Heat can flow permanently between two objects, if those objects are fixed at certain temperatures so that there is a constant thermal gradient between them. Otherwise, and it applies here because the plate temperatures are not fixed, heat flow between objects tends towards zero as much as possible. When the plates are separated, heat flow between them is zero. So it will remain that way.
“Heat can flow between two objects, but your conditions are gibberish. They can flow between two objects even if the objects are at the same temperature, which the green and blue plates are at the same temperature before separation, and yes there is heat flow from blue to green before separation. Heat flow tends towards zero, yes, but not when there is a constant source of energy, which there is in this problem both before and after separation.”
Nonsense, bob. Heat flow between objects tends towards zero wherever possible, regardless of “when there is a constant source of energy”. If there was no “constant source of energy”, plate temperatures would drop towards zero!
“Yes, at the moment of separation, heat flow between the plates stops, but not for long, because immediately at that point the blue plate starts heating up and the green plate starts cooling down. Eventually the green plates heat up and return to 244.”
Nonsense, bob. There is no reason for the green plates to cool. They weren’t cooling when pressed against the blue plate, and they were still radiating 400 W to space then.
OK Ball4, I will go with the only conceivable interpretation of your comment, which is that it is in accord with ClintR’s 1:15 PM comment.
You are free to go with whatever you want DREMT, though I see you will go with the fact you have not learned from, and cannot explain, the context of the old thread from which you selected one comment.
Ball4, do you ever stop trolling?
“Otherwise, and it applies here because the plate temperatures are not fixed, heat flow between objects tends towards zero as much as possible.”
We really need to develop this into a show.
‘Climate deniers say the darndest things’
We’ll sell it to the channel that shows ‘Hillbilly hand-fishing’.
Here’s DREMT declaring more nonphysical absurdities.
How is it he thinks heat flow ‘tend toward to zero’ in a situation with a heater constantly supplying heat!
‘plate temperatures not fixed’ and So what?
Consider the one plate scenario. We all agree that the plate reaches a steady 244K, all on its own. Nobody needs to FIX it. And there is a constant flow of heat from it to space.
In multi-plate scenarios the plates, all on their own, reach steady temperature. Nobody needs to FIX them!
The beauty of heat transfer here is that temperatures naturally reach the values needed to provide the temperature gradient required to maintain the flow of heat thru the system.
And heat flows thru the system because it is being supplied by the heater!
Only a moron-troll could fail to get this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_transfer.
IF DREMT believes heat, or thermal energy, or whatever he wants to call it, can be transferred without a temperature gradient, then it ought to be described in here somewhere.
Please show us where.
Bob says :
“They can flow between two objects even if the objects are at the same temperature, which the green and blue plates are at the same temperature before separation, and yes there is heat flow from blue to green before separation.”
Just to clarify. In the real world of conduction, there needs to be a small temperature difference. In metals, that can be teeny tiny, 0.01 K.
In this problem it is so small that it can be neglected.
By comparison, the same heat flow requires 290-244 K = 46 K when it is transferred by radiation.
As noted over and over, conduction and radiation are quite different.
"You are free to go with whatever you want DREMT"
Well, here’s what you said, again:
"JD’s separated version would have the middle (blue) plate increasing in temperature with no change in incoming or outgoing energy, which IS a clear violation of 1LOT law of physics, typical for JD as an entertainment specialist:
244K…290..244K"
And here’s what ClintR said:
"Another way to show how bob doesn’t understand thermodynamics is to consider the “heat content” of each plate.
All plates are identical so they have the same mass (m) and the same specific heat capacity (C). Before separation, at equilibrium, each plate has 244*m*C Joules. Or 3*244*m*C = 732mC Joules, for the total.
In the idiot solution of the 3-plates, after separation the total energy content would be 244mC + 290mC + 244mC = 778mC Joules.
So the energy in the plates went up, with no additional energy incoming. The idiot solution creates energy from nothing!
bob, and the other idiots, don’t understand thermodynamics!"
I would say that the two comments are in accord. So I will go with that.
You are free to go with whatever you want DREMT, explaining this thread’s comments is not needed as they are currently in plain sight.
I see you will go with the fact you have not learned from, and cannot explain, the context of the old thread from which you selected one comment.
I’m fully aware of the context, as I was there, commenting, in the thick of it, at the time. I conclude that the two comments are in accord. You are obviously not capable of explaining why they are not.
So go ahead explain the former thread context. Or are you too embarrassed to do so?
DREMPTY MORON,
“Nonsense, bob. There is no reason for the green plates to cool. They werent cooling when pressed against the blue plate, and they were still radiating 400 W to space then.”
But after separation the green plates are radiating 400 watts to space and just to piss your morons off, 400 watts of back radiation to the blue plate.
For a total of 800 watts, and since the green plates are only receiving 400 watts from the blue plate, there is an energy imbalance and the green plates must cool.
“Ive never known a person so upset that I asked them once if they were a moron. Sheesh.”
Is that an apology for asking if I was a moron?
Might help things if it was, but it won’t help you grasp the concepts of thermodynamics.
“Wrong, as previously explained.”
Look MORON, I have shown your previous explanation to be incorrect.
“Heat can flow permanently between two objects, if those objects are fixed at certain temperatures so that there is a constant thermal gradient between them.”
Nope, like I said this is just gibberish, everything in this statement is wrong.
Heat flow does not require object to be fixed in temperature.
There doesn’t even need to be a temperature gradient. When you boil water, water at 100 C becomes steam at 100 C, there is heat transfer with no temperature change.
“Nonsense, bob. Heat flow between objects tends towards zero wherever possible, regardless of when there is a constant source of energy. If there was no constant source of energy, plate temperatures would drop towards zero!”
Yes, but the problem has a constant heat source, so saying that heat flow between objects tends towards zero whenever possible, when that situation is not in the problem.
I can’t remember what fallacy that is, maybe denying the antecedent, but it’s very bad logic.
Moron.
Anyone want to take a bucket of hot liquid freon and dump it onto a much colder steel plate and tell me the results in terms of heat transfer.
Probably result in reporting heat transfer against a temperature gradient.
Any smokers amongst the denialati that would like to try?
“But after separation the green plates are radiating 400 watts to space and just to piss your morons off, 400 watts of back radiation to the blue plate.
For a total of 800 watts, and since the green plates are only receiving 400 watts from the blue plate, there is an energy imbalance and the green plates must cool.”
bob, you agree that the green plates have no such energy imbalance when they were pressed together. It’s not like separating them means they become physically bigger objects requiring more energy to remain at the same temperature. They still each have two sides even when they are all pressed together.
“Heat flow does not require object to be fixed in temperature.”
I didn’t say it did. I said if you were going to have heat flow between objects at steady state, one of the reasons could be that the objects are fixed at certain temperatures, such that there is a permanent thermal gradient. Otherwise, heat flow between objects tends to act to reduce that gradient to zero. Like in this idealized thought experiment.
“Yes, but the problem has a constant heat source, so saying that heat flow between objects tends towards zero whenever possible, when that situation is not in the problem.”
You are arguing that there needs to be heat flow between the objects at steady state. I am arguing that there doesn’t. That’s what this boils down to. Pretty simple really.
“You are arguing that there needs to be heat flow between the objects at steady state.”
Yep because that what is required by common sense, basic heat transfer principles and thermodynamic laws, as has been shown to you many times.
“I am arguing that there doesn’t.”
But you are unable to cite any theory or real laws of physics to support your argument. It is just a feeling you have.
Thus, by the standard rules of debate, you lose the argument.
Now the loser will declare himself the winner anyway, thus proving that he is thoroughly dishonest and still has the temperament of a spoiled child.
DREMPTY,
The heat has to flow from the heater to the blue plate, from the blue plate to the green plate, and from the green plate to space.
If you don’t understand that and say that doesn’t have to be the case you are a moron.
End of story.
No bob, there is simply no reason for a thermal gradient to exist between the plates. Heat would always flow between them in order to act to reduce that thermal gradient to zero. In this idealized thought experiment, there is no reason for that not to happen.
ClintR and Ball4 have already pointed out the problems with separation of the plates taking the temperatures from 244 K…244 K…244 K to 244 K…290 K…244 K, with no change in energy in/out. Your first step in recovering from your denial is to acknowledge that it is indeed impossible.
Let me know when you have got to step one.
I have pointed out no such problem DREMT.
Well, here’s what you said, again:
"JD’s separated version would have the middle (blue) plate increasing in temperature with no change in incoming or outgoing energy, which IS a clear violation of 1LOT law of physics, typical for JD as an entertainment specialist:
244K…290..244K"
Again, that’s a single comment you dredged up debunking banned moniker JD not moniker Clint R, you remain confused as usual DREMT. My current context response to Clint R is upsubthread, repeat that current comment if you repeat anything.
No, Ball4, what you wrote supported JD, at the time. You had obviously got yourself confused because you wrote the comment like you were contradicting him, but actually what you said supported his arguments.
Your comment is in accord with the point made by ClintR at 1:15 PM.
You are free to make up anything you want to write, my comment to Clint R is in this thread not the previous one debunking JD in another constuct when the GPE was setlled in favor of Eli.
Your comment from two years ago happens to be in accord with ClintRs 1:15 PM comment, and helps debunk the GPE.
DREMPTY,
I already showed you why there was a change in the energy going out.
You just hand waved it away.
Man, your arms must be tired.
Moron.
Yes, you explained that you think the green plates suddenly require twice as much energy to remain at the same temperature, just because the method of energy transfer has changed from conduction to radiation.
DREMTPY
Again claims that 1+1=1
Moron
Does he? Oh.
So lets imagine space was replaced with giant warm walls, 200 K instead of 3K.
Would the 1 plate scenario temperature change?
would it still be 244 K?
If so, then the thermal gradient is less, and the output heat flow in both directions would be sigma(244^4-200^4) = 110 W by the RHTE.
Total output is 220 W.
But the input is still, 400 W.
What would happen?
Where have I claimed that 1+1=1, bob?
Wrong again DREMT 2:33pm, my comment from the past occurred before Clint R moniker even showed up here, that long ago comment can’t possibly be in accord with Clint R since that screen name did not exist at the time of my comment. Leave it to DREMT to play such silly, false games.
The long-ago comment debunked what now banned screen name JD had written on another construct, and the GPE was settled in favor of Eli long ago, both experimentally and theoretically.
Ball4, the words you have written in your comment from two years ago make the same point that ClintR has made, two years later. It is entirely possible for two different people to make the same point at two different times. Your comment helps debunk the GPE, so thank you for your assistance.
Sure, it is entirely possible my long-ago comment debunks both screen names JD and the new kid Clint R on another construct than the GPE. The GPE itself was long ago settled in favor of Eli.
Your words help debunk the GPE, thank you for your assistance.
My long ago words directed to banned JD on another construct have nothing to do with the GPE settled In favor of Eli but you are free to create more falsehoods for as long as you can DREMT. It is really entertaining watching DREMT twist in the wind.
Obviously you are the one twisting and wriggling, Ball4…squirming around trying to escape from your own words.
No DREMT, I stand having debunked the banned for good reason JD; keep twisting…twisting…twisting DREMT, for the entertainment provided. Btw, GPE settled in favor of Eli.
Well, here’s what you said, again:
"JD’s separated version would have the middle (blue) plate increasing in temperature with no change in incoming or outgoing energy, which IS a clear violation of 1LOT law of physics, typical for JD as an entertainment specialist:
244K…290..244K"
And here’s what ClintR said:
"Another way to show how bob doesn’t understand thermodynamics is to consider the “heat content” of each plate.
All plates are identical so they have the same mass (m) and the same specific heat capacity (C). Before separation, at equilibrium, each plate has 244*m*C Joules. Or 3*244*m*C = 732mC Joules, for the total.
In the idiot solution of the 3-plates, after separation the total energy content would be 244mC + 290mC + 244mC = 778mC Joules.
So the energy in the plates went up, with no additional energy incoming. The idiot solution creates energy from nothing!
bob, and the other idiots, don’t understand thermodynamics!"
I would say that the two comments are in accord. So I will go with that. Keep wriggling, Ball4.
Of course DREMT would wrongly say anything; fact remains I long ago debunked the rightly banned JD and wrote a different current comment for Clint R in a different debate not the GPE long settled in favor of Eli.
The discussion two years ago was on the exact same subject – the three-plate scenario GPE, which is simply an extension of the logic of the original GPE. Your comment supported the debunking of the GPE back then, and it still does so today. It is in accord with the comment from ClintR. Keep on wrigglin’.
I long ago debunked banned JD’s faulty science comment on the three-plate scenario in that comment DREMT clipped, the original two-plate GPE settled separately in favor of Eli. Just keep twistin’ word’s meanings DREMT, fun to watch. It won’t work for you, most of the crowd here is way too astute.
Your comment supported JD, and helped debunk the GPE. It still does, to this day. It is the gift that keeps on giving. Thank you for your support, Ball4.
DREMT has had a couple of years to learn a tiny bit of heat transfer theory, and solve ONE homework problem.
But he seems to be incapable and very resistant to learning even the basic principles.
Meanwhile he has successfully translated his playground bullying skills to the internet.
Thank you for your support, Ball4.
Yes, debunking JD was easy and fun long ago, it’s good JD got banned, now it’s just as easy and fun to debunk Clint R and DREMT. GPE is long settled in favor of Eli.
Your comment supported JD at the time, and is similar in content to ClintR’s comment, helping to debunk the GPE.
DREMPTY,
When you said this
“But, there is no reason for the green plates to cool on separation.”
You are claiming that the green plates do not start radiating from both sides when they are separated, or
1+1+1
You know, bob, the plates still have two sides when they’re pressed together.
DREMPTY,
You know when they are pressed together, the green plates are only radiating from one side.
You know that, right?
You know that, right?
You are just trying to **** with me right?
You said the green plates don’t cool when separated, right?
You believe in back conduction, no?
Heat flow by conduction is in one direction, no?
Yes, bob, they only radiate from one side when pressed together. They conduct from the other side. Still two sides in total, the side facing the blue plate just as capable of “losing energy” as much as it can when radiating.
So what you are saying, is when pressed together, there is x watts transferred from green to blue, so the blue plate is getting 400 + 2*x watts, so its temperature is more than 244, right?
So you are admitting that your solution with the plates pressed together is not 244, 244, and 244?
WTF?
No, bob, because back-conduction, like back-radiation, cannot heat anything. So the temperature remains 244 K…244 K…244 K. Together or separated.
“So the temperature remains 244 K244 K244 K.”
This is the Holy Trinity of the faithful. Hallowed be thy name.
Some worshipers describe miraculous events: unheated objects warming, just as if they were heated!
Heat flow apparently stopped, then restarted on the other side of a great divide.
Others are speaking in tongues:
“because back-conduction”
No reply from bob…guess he gets it.
Nope DREMPTY,
I am just giving you up for the rest of Lent.
Good, good.
CO2 does not ‘trap heat’.
That nonsense belongs to those you obtain when PR staffs or journalists try to explain science in the mode ‘keep it as simple as possible’.
Such simplifications are a complete misrepresentation of what happens, and contribute to increase unsound skepticism.
1. CO2, like H2O, CH4, N2O, all CFCs etc, reduces, even if in tiniest quantities, longwave infrared radiation (LWIR) emitted by Earth in response to Sun’s shortwave radiation.
All main constituents of the atmosphere (N2, O2, Ar) show no or very few IR-sensitivity (Ar none at all; N2 absorbs and reemits 10^6 less than H2O and CO2, O2 10^4 less, even though considering their relative atmospheric abundance).
Without all these trace gases, 99.99 % of the LWIR would reach outer space directly.
In the presence of these gases, only one half of what they absorb is on average reemitted to space; the other half is reemitted down to Earth. This process of course can be repeated many times in both directions.
It is amazing to see how ignorant some people are, who brazenly pretend that trace gases cool the atmosphere because they emit radiation from there. Such people simply ignore or dissimulate the fact that what is emitted has been absorbed milliseconds before!
*
2. The higher trace gases move up in the lower layers of the atmosphere, the higher will be the altitude at which LWIR stops being intercepted.
As long as this altitude keeps lower than 50 km, the last reemission temperature keeps far lower than that of the surface; the reemission energy then is correspondingly lower.
This increases Earth’s energy imbalance even a bit more; this imbalance is a greater concern than the LWIR backradiation reaching the surface (for CO2: not much more than 2 W/m^2).
*
Adding CO2 to the atmosphere very certainly will not result in any terrific warming. But this is not a reason to ignore the effect.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon, you acknowledge once again your failure to understand physics. But, you didn’t include any links that you also don’t understand.
You’re slipping.
Ooops
Should read:
1. CO2, like H2O, CH4, N2O, all CFCs etc, reduces, even if in tiniest quantities, the escape to space of longwave infrared radiation (LWIR) emitted by Earth in response to Suns shortwave radiation.
Better thread placement: You can add to the list O2, N2 reduction in OLR due their massive quantities and collision induced absorp_tion in the infrared.
Ball4
” You can add to the list O2, N2 reduction in OLR… ”
No, certainly not, Ball4.
Unless you bring us a real proof that
– the energy kept by the N2/O2 Brownian Movement due to collisions with the IR interceptors before they reemit
is comparable with
– the energy the latter themselves prevent from reaching space.
J.-P. D.
Certainly not? Here’s some reading for your proof otherwise Bindidon:
Discovered by Crawford et al. [1949], collision induced absorp_tion leads to weak absorp_tion features of N2 and O2 in the infrared [e.g., Hartmann et al., 2008].
Timofeyev and Tonkov [1978] reported that at distinct wavelengths near the band center, O2 absorp_tion may affect the atmospheric zenith transmission by up to 9% for dry atmospheric conditions.
In the atmosphere, the infrared signal of O2 has first been detected through balloon-borne limb-sounding observations [Rinsland et al., 1982].
The mid-infrared absorp_tion of N2 was first observed by Susskind and Searl [1977] by use of ground-based FTIR measurements.
A further detailed analysis of the mid-infrared continuum signals of O2 and N2 has been performed on basis of space-borne observations by Rinsland et al. [1989].
The N2 absorp_tion band in the sub-mm range has been analyzed in atmospheric measurements by Pardo et al. [2001].
We have found that on global average under clear-sky conditions the OLR is reduced due to O2 by 0.11 W/m^2 and due to N2 by 0.17 W/m^2. Together this amounts to 15% of the OLR-reduction caused by CH4 at present atmospheric concentrations. [Hopfner 2012] GRL Vol. 39.
Ball4
” You can add to the list O2, N2 reduction in OLR… ”
I know one of the sources, have it on disk:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2012GL051409
All is well therein concerning the measurement numbers.
But sorry, again I repeat: No, certainly not, Ball4.
How can you compare the OLR reduction of H2O+CO2 (90 W/m^2) with the tiny bits – 0.16 W/m^2) N2+O2 account for?
0.2 % ! Are you serious?
By the way: this article has been misused numerous times to push up the effect of N2 and O2 wrt that of the really IR-intercepting gases, even on this blog if I well do remember.
J.-P. D.
Forbes censored an interview with me
http://www.sciencebits.com/forbes-censored-interviewme#disqus_threads
Holá Adel!
¿Qué pasa? ¡Página no encontrada!
J.-P. D.
Adelaida
Luckily, Spain’s people reponsible for fighting against COVID19 are a lot more intelligent than the Abbott guy…
J.-P. D.
You can add to the list O2, N2 reduction in OLR due their massive quantities and collision induced absorp_tion in the infrared.
Hello Bindidon!!
It is very interesting!
I repeat It:
http://www.sciencebits.com/forbes-censored-interview-me
Gracias Adelaida, I’ll read the stuff tomorrow.
J.-P.
I don’t understund …. Abbott guy??
Who is he?
Adelaida
” Abbott guy ”
Sorry for the shortcut, it was a reference to Lubos Motl’s
https://motls.blogspot.com/2021/03/extreme-leftists-react-to-reopening-of.html
which I found in the ScienceBits page you linked to.
I confess: Motl does not at all belong to my preferred scientists, even if I have nothing in common with ‘extreme leftists’.
*
A propos science, dear Adelaida…
What do you think about these papers, written – evidently on the hobby line – by Arbab Ibrahim Arbab, a Sudanese professor for Experimental Physics?
1. Spin – orbit coupling in gravitational systems (2016)
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Arbab-Arbab/publication/306255599_Spin_-_orbit_coupling_in_gravitational_systems/links/5b87f2b1299bf1d5a731f8ea/Spin-orbit-coupling-in-gravitational-systems.pdf?origin=publication_detail
*
2. The generalized Newtons law of gravitation versus the general theory of relativity (2018)
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1105.1911
You need a lot of knowledge AND cojones to write such a stuff!
I hope you will enjoy the papers.
Mejores saludos
J.-P. D.
Ball4 Says: 13 to 18 micron photons can come from the sun as measured at the surface of Earth. The sun is thought to be a bit warmer than -80C: again, how does CO2isLife go about proving the 13 to 18 micron photon came from 1) high cirrus icy clouds or 2) the sun?
That is one of the most insightful questions I’ve read on this blog. That is actually an interesting observation. Cirrus Clouds can form at any altitude between 5,000 and 13,700 m above sea level. At the lowest layer the temp is -6°C, at the top it is -56°C. At those temperatures the surrounding temperatures keep the ice in ice form. Also, clouds are huge, so the sun may be melting the ice at the surface of the cloud, only to have it freeze again when the drop falls into the cloud and is blocked from the direct sun light.
The experiment I detailed has the temperature right at the margin of melting, ie 0.00°C. The purpose once again is to isolate the impact of CO2 on temperatures, that Is why I’m looking for the marginal additional energy from visible radiation melts the frost. CO2 and scattered and reflected visible radiation doesn’t melt the frost, but direct visible radiation provides the energy to push the ice over the edge and melt/evaporate.
“The purpose once again is to isolate the impact of CO2 on temperatures..”
Ok then, try this experiment in your home lab. Set up a black water container fed by water line to keep its water at the same level as it steadily boils above the flame of a Bunsen burner. You have a steady SW IR source at 212F. Slightly less than the sun surface but closer.
Obtain a long (several feet) brass cylinder several inches in diameter with closed end coverings that allow IR (broadband actually is ok) to pass through into the tube that has a thermometer installed sticking the business end into the center of the cylinder which has a valve installed to allow lab air to escape and a valve to allow another gas to enter from its gas container. Shine the SW source light through your closed brass tube with STP lab air and record the thermometer temperature as equilibrium is achieved. Then set up a drying mechanism to dry the lab air as it fills the tube, record dry, much less humid air equilibrium temperature at lab ambient pressure.
Now, let in the CO2 gas through the gas drying mechanism and purge the lab air out until you are satisfied the dry CO2 clear gas essentially fills the container. Now shine the SW light from your boiling water source through the clear gas in the cylinder and record the equilibrium temperature. Fill us in on the two equilibrium thermometer temperatures you have recorded.
Now get some Ar gas, N2 gas, so forth from your local gas supply shop. And fill us in on those dry equilibrium temperatures. You might even hook up a way to exhaust the tube to a really low pressure and experiment with that or a higher than ambient pressure compressor. Go to town on this experimenting & let us know results.
Ball4, unecessarily complicated.
1) Dry Ice is frozen 100% CO2.
2) Place Dry Ice in a container with a hose leading into a balloon that is transparent to IR of 13 to 18µ.
3) Shine longpass filtered light onto the balloon.
4) Measure the temperature against a control.
5) There should be no temperature differential
1) Place Dry ice in a container
2) Shine Longpass filtered IR of 13 to 18µ onto the dry ice
3) Record the volume sublimated by filling a ballon.
4) Compare that to a control.
5) The radiated dry ice should sublimate faster
1) Place water in a plexiglass container (IR transparent)
2) Place the container in a dark room
3) Shine Longpass filtered IR of 13 to 18µ onto the water
4) Record a timeseries of temperatures
5) Compare to a control
6) There should be no temperature differential
Every highschool in the world can run those experiments
And High Schools would have no controlled experiments in all those cases. They will get random answers depending on the multiple variables.
Shine the SW source light through your closed brass tube with STP lab air and record the thermometer temperature
I’m pretty sure SW will warm the brass. That is why you have to use IR transparent Plexiglass and not normal glass for these experiments. Once again, you have to isolate the impact of CO2, 13 to 18µ LWIR, and water. You don’t want the equipment to provide the warming.
This is what you need:
https://www.gsoptics.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/HSP6_1125_S.jpg
“I’m pretty sure SW will warm the brass.”
The steady SW from your source is not incident on the brass, it shines into the window at the one end and out the other end through the clear gas.
Ball4,
A real scientist does experiments.
A stupid alarmist demands others waste their time and effort on an alarmist fantasy.
Maybe you should read the results of real experimental work done by John Tyndall, back in the nineteenth century.
Tyndall showed that gases can obstruct the passage of energy. He also showed that this obstruction results in lower temperatures. He even found one liquid which blocked heat so effectively that adding a brass plate to the path had no effect.
Some silly people would no doubt leap to the conclusion that brass is a greenhouse material, because it can absorb and emit IR.
As a side note, some alarmists do not realise that Tyndall’s galvanometer was calibrated in degrees of rotation, not temperature, and that direction indicated increased or decreased energy reaching his thermopile.
Carry on fantasising.
Swenson aka Amazed aka Flynn
” As a side note, some alarmists do not realise that Tyndall’s galvanometer was calibrated in degrees of rotation, not temperature, and that direction indicated increased or decreased energy reaching his thermopile. ”
*
This utter nonsense you pretended years ago already.
Here is what Tyndall wrote:
https://tinyurl.com/ffx854tx (link tinyURL’d due to ‘absorp-tion’)
In the text:
*
” The galvanometer quantifies the difference in temperature between the left and right sides of the thermopile.
The reading on the galvanometer is settable to zero by moving the Heat Screen a bit closer or farther from the lefthand heat source. That is the only role for the heat source on the left.
The heat source on the righthand side directs radiant heat into the long brass tube. The long brass tube is highly polished on the inside, which makes it a good reflector (and non-absorber) of the radiant heat inside the tube.
Rock-salt (NaCl) is practically transparent to radiant heat, and so plugging the ends of the long brass tube with rock-salt plates allows radiant heat to move freely in and out at the tube endpoints, yet completely blocks the gas within from moving out. ”
*
You are such a arrogant and ignorant liar, Swenson!
J.-P. D.
Shush you guys; you will get CO2isLife incented to look up past data from real experiments.
And, find the galvanometers registered reduced energy because the incident energy was first absorbed warming the clear gas as indicated by mercury thermometers in the gas.
Binn y,
It is as I said. Reread your Tyndall. Try understanding his experimental setup. His galvanometer needle is free to swing in both directions – degrees of motion, not temperature.
Then carry on with your stupid unfounded ad hominem attacks.
You alarmists are a strange lot. Do you make up stuff as you go, or just repeat any random rubbish you hear?
Anybody interested can read “Heat – a mode of motion”, by Professor John Tyndall, 6th edition, if they so wish.
Ball4,
You are correct. The gas column reduces the amount of energy impinging on an object. This results in a reduction in temperature.
As to mercury thermometers, your fantasy is not born out by Tyndall’s writings. Here –
“Some means must be devised of making the indications of heat and cold visible to you, and for this purpose an ordinary thermometer would be useless. You could not observe its action . . . ”
But hey, alarmists are only tenuously connected to reality, aren’t they?
Swenson aka Amazed aka Flynn
Here is a link to most of Tyndall’s work
https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_6gkQA8-8mnMC
Show us the place.
J.-P. D.
swenson…”As a side note, some alarmists do not realise that Tyndalls galvanometer was calibrated in degrees of rotation, not temperature, and that direction indicated increased or decreased energy reaching his thermopile”.
That sounds right. A galvanometer is a form of ammeter that sense the direction of current flow through its coils. It is zeroed at mid-scale and deflects right or left depending on the direction of current flow.
Tyndall would not have had the technology to set up a galvanometer to measure temperature. He even admitted he was measuring differences in heat input from two sources. He was not concerned about the actual temperature just the relative level of heat as generated as a voltage by thermopyles.
GR,
Quite right. A galvanometer shows the direction of current flows.
Tyndall was quite brilliant in both nulling and calibrating his galvanometer to show equal deflection for equal currents in both directions.
Alarmists seem not to comprehend that Tyndall spoke of degrees of deflection, not degrees of temperature. They also overlook the fact that Tyndall used a galvanometer purposefully – to show whether cooling or heating was taking place.
Not terribly bright, some alarmists.
Some commenters such as Gordon and Swenson are not particularly well-read nor informed on the use of galvanometers & CO2isLife should note for the clear gas in the brass tube illuminated at boiling water temperature:
Tyndall 1861: “I subsequently had the tube perforated and thermometers screwed into it air-tight. On filling the tube the thermometric columns rose, on exhausting it they sank, the range between the maximum and minimum amounting in the case of air to 5 degrees FAHR.”
Shine the SW source light through your closed brass tube with STP lab air and record the thermometer temperature as equilibrium is achieved
Unless you are using laser light, plenty of that light will be absorbed and warming the Brass. Licht, especially the short wavelength blue light scatters in the atmosphere.
Some source light indeed will be scattered inside the tube; the amount will be nil effect on tube brass temperature as the gas is abundantly observed clear. Outside the tube, there is incident ambient light on the tube that is part of the lab for each test run, also nil affect on the experimental results. Monitor your tube brass temperature if you wish, compare to gas temperature change.
Ball4,
You wrote –
“Some source light indeed will be scattered inside the tube; the amount will be nil effect on tube brass temperature as the gas is abundantly observed clear.”
Binny has an excuse for his poor English.
What’s yours?
Or do you think that incomprehensible gibberish makes you look clever?
You could experiment using a modified NDIR-type instrument. Most CO2 NDIR instruments use optical filters in front the thermopiles. A 3.9 um filter is used for a control since that frequency is not active with common gases. A 4.2 um filter is used to isolate CO2 since that frequency is active for the antisym stretching mode of CO2 but not active for any other common gas. There’s no reason you couldn’t use a 15 um filter to isolate CO2 as well since that frequency is active for the bending mode. However, if using a 15 um filter you would probably want to do one measurement with normal atmosphere as a control and one with elevated CO2. To approximate 2xCO2 you would likely need a very long tube (100 meters) and a very high CO2 concentration (50% or more). I don’t remember the exact CO2 concentration required to approximate 2xCO2’s cross sectional area, but I do know it has be exaggerated since you cannot create a 50 km long tube. And although 4.2 um does contribute to CO2’s radiative force it is minor compared to 15 um. Unfortunately 15 um is active with other common gases so it is much harder to use it to truly isolate CO2’s response. That’s why CO2 NDIR’s typically use 4.2 um.
When you read DREMT’s poorish contributions to Moon’s spin, you can only ask: how can such a person be brazen enough to pretend that the controversy would be ‘over’.
All what DREMT and his affiliates – Robertson, Clint R, Swenson and hunter – until now were able to push up was to discredit, denigrate and distort both historical and contemporary science.
I’m not interested in the discussion concerning the ‘plate stuff’ initiated by Dr Halpern, but I wouldn’t wonder if DREMT’s contribution would be exactly as ridiculous and unscientific as his childish merry-go-round and Tesla blah blah.
J.-P. D.
Pompous Bindidon, the moon debate is settled. It does not rotate on its own axis.
DREMT
The Moon does rotate on its own axis. It is established fact and as Bindidon has pointed out, this fact is used to engineer lunar landings.
You can persist with your view. Obviously no one here can alter your perception.
You can move a Quarter around another and then find you HAVE to rotate it on its axis to make it keep facing the center Quarter.
You are correct, the moon debate is settled. You conclusion of the settlement is wrong. But there is no possible debate with this issue. Logic, evidence do not work so there is not a potential for valid debate.
It is a case of your false belief vs evidence. No one can change your belief.
Norman believes “It is established fact and as Bindidon has pointed out, this fact is used to engineer lunar landings.”
Wrong Norman, something that isn’t happening does not affect reality.
You just swallow what your cult members tell you.
norman …”this fact is used to engineer lunar landings”.
Yes, Norman, because the mother ship from which the lunar lander is launched is flying at considerable altitude and velocity above the lunar surface. When the lander is released, it too is in orbit and traveling at the same speed as the mother ship.
The lander must first be slowed down till it is out of orbit by firing retro-engines. Then, as it breaks orbit, it tends to free fall, other engines are used to keep it from falling too fast.
If the mother ship was orbiting around the Moon so we were looking right at the orbital plane as seen perpendicular to a radial line from the Earth, and the object was to drop the lander in the middle of the plane as seen from the Earth side, complex math would be required to slow the lander to hit that position as it descended from a speeding mother ship.
There would be nothing required in the calculations to account for a local rotation of the Moon because there is none. The only motion would be that of the lander performing translation as it got out of orbit and landed.
No it isn’t, DREMT.
Simply because you and your friends-in-denial until now were unable to contradict dozens of real science contribution in this debate.
Regardless what you think, mean and write: the discussion will not be settled before a majority of commenters involved in the discussion say so.
You can repeat and repeat your stuff – like do Clint R and his predecessors JD*Huffman and ge*r*an – as long as you want.
That won’t change anything.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon has to go with “consensus” since he has no background in orbital motion.
Pompous Bindidon, the moon debate is settled. It does not rotate on its own axis.
…as observed from the accelerated frame.
Pompous Bindidon, the moon debate is settled. It does not rotate on its own axis.
I agree with Sir Isaac Newton.
The Moon is falling towards the Earth. A person at a point on the Moon closest to the Earth, will see the Earth above them (or underneath them, if you wish) – at all times.
No problem. The Moon won’t fall onto the Earth, crushing the Moon-bound observer, because the Moon’s trajectory carries it about one and a quarter millimeters further from the Earth in the one second it takes to fall that same one and a quarter millimeters (or so).
As Sir Isaac said, from the viewpoint of the fixed stars, the Moon appears to be rotating. So would Newton’s cannonball, with a big X painted on the side facing the Earth, when fired from a smooth bore cannon without any spin.
But I suppose that if you want to believe that people on a round the world cruise are all rotating around their axes, along with the cruise liner which is circling the Earth with its keel pointed towards the Earths center of gravity, then good for you!
A career with the National Science Foundation, NASA, or any number of organisations who reject Newton’s Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation, awaits you.
“So would Newtons cannonball, with a big X painted on the side facing the Earth, when fired from a smooth bore cannon without any spin.”
Physics says otherwise.
Your feelings about what his cannonball would be doing are neither evidence nor logic.
“So would Newton’s cannonball, with a big X painted on the side facing the Earth, when fired from a smooth bore cannon without any spin.”
Physics says otherwise.
Your feelings about what his cannonball would be doing are neither evidence nor logic.
Have you told NASA? They plan to put the Lunar Gateway in a stable polar HALO orbit. This remains in the same orientation while the Moon rotates below it.
The moon does not rotate on its own axis. The moon “orbits”, or rotates around an external axis, hence it changes its orientation whilst it moves. In other words, you’re making the same mistake as always. NASA’s Lunar Gateway plan will work fine, so no need to tell them.
Yes DREMT, our moon changes its orientation whilst it moves, spinning once on its own axis per orbit. Only in the accelerated frame is the moon observed to not rotate on its own axis. Like ftop_t showed you here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
Ent, if Moon were actually rotating about its axis, we would see that from Earth. You need to appreciate reality, rather than rejecting it.
If our Moon were actually rotating about its axis more or less than once per orbit, we would see all sides from Earth. Commenters need to appreciate reality, rather than rejecting it.
The moon rotating once on its axis per orbit was settled long ago by Tesla in his momentum analysis of wheel and ball M assembly. Many are obviously unable to appreciate the physics employed.
Ball4, there is actually only one frame of reference from which the moon appears to rotate on its own axis. That’s a translating reference frame where the origin is located at the center of mass of the moon, and the Cartesian axes remain aligned towards various distant, fixed stars. From all other reference frames, the moon can be observed to be rotating about the Earth/moon barycenter, and not on its own axis, as ftop_t showed you in the comment you obsessively link to.
Now DREMT debunks DREMT previously writing “our moon changes its orientation whilst it moves” in that now our moon doesn’t change orientation as it moves. DREMT like Gordon cannot keep his stories straight.
The moon rotating on its own axis once per orbit was proven by Tesla in the wheel and ball M assembly analysis settling the debate long ago and the GPE was settled in favor of Eli. DREMT aimlessly wanders around debunking nothing but himself. Paste a little jetliner in place of the round object to show Gordon what really happens:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
Our moon changes its orientation whilst it moves because it is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass, as is shown in the comment you obsessively link to, and as Tesla argued when he wrote:
"The moon does rotate, not on its own, but about an axis passing thru the center of the earth, the true and only one."
The GPE is debunked, as you agreed when you wrote that comment to JD a couple of years ago:
"JD’s separated version would have the middle (blue) plate increasing in temperature with no change in incoming or outgoing energy, which IS a clear violation of 1LOT law of physics, typical for JD as an entertainment specialist:
244K…290..244K"
Agreeing with ClintR’s 1:15 PM comment.
Clint R
“we would see that from Earth. ”
Very Ptolomaic of you.
“Our moon changes its orientation whilst it moves..”
Very well DREMT now our moon doesn’t just appear to do so, our moon actually changes its orientation in orbit, try to stick with that correct story agreeing with ftop_t demo. I debunked JD on another situation and agreed the GPE was settled in favor of Eli.
Our moon changes its orientation whilst it moves because it is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass, as is shown in ftop_t’s demo.
Whether or not you debunked JD “on another situation”, and whether or not you think that the GPE is not debunked, what you wrote supports ClintR’s 1:15 PM comment and thus the idea that the GPE is debunked.
I see DREMT still does not understand what I wrote debunks JD but that is to be expected from a commenter doesn’t understand Tesla settled the moon does actually (not only appears to) change orientation rotating once on its own axis per orbit as shown by ftop_t & the original GPE is long settled in favor of Eli.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
Our moon changes its orientation whilst it moves because it is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass, as is shown in ftop_t’s demo, and as agreed by Tesla.
Whether or not you debunked JD “on another situation”, and whether or not you think that the GPE is not debunked, what you wrote supports ClintR’s 1:15 PM comment and thus the idea that the GPE is debunked.
Our moon changes its orientation as it orbits is correct as Tesla proved; our moon also changes its position in space since it is also in orbit thus two different momentums in any ref. frame.
Our moon changes its orientation whilst it moves because it is rotating about an external axis, and not about its own center of mass, as is shown in ftop_t’s demo, and as agreed by Tesla.
…as agreed by Tesla’s editor DREMT not Tesla, you’ve confused the two yet again.
Tesla himself (not his editor) wrote:
"The moon does rotate, not on its own, but about an axis passing thru the center of the earth, the true and only one."
DREMT yet again avoids Tesla’s momentum proof our moon rotates on its own axis once per orbit when the ball M is “fixt” on Tesla’s wheel assembly. Once DREMT (or anyone capable) understands that proof, the rest of Tesla’s verbiage can be readily explained.
Get to work understanding the physics involved in Tesla’s proof DREMT, when you have mastered that, the rest of Tesla’s verbiage will become clear.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-631244
binny…”When you read DREMTs poorish contributions to Moons spin, you can only ask: how can such a person be brazen enough to pretend that the controversy would be over”.
Because the debate was proved to be over, not only by non-spinners but by Tesla and the utter inability of spinners to prove their case. That’s especially true for you, someone who used ad homs, appeals to authority, and the recitations of ancient scientists, none of whose theories you understood. You offered no scientific understanding of your own.
Yes the debate was proved to be over when Tesla settled on the rotating on its own axis moon once per Earth orbit with his wheel and ball M assembly for those that can appreciate the momentum physics Tesla employed.
Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis. He wrote one very short section in one of his articles where he went through one of the biggest reasons why people think the moon rotates on its own axis, then went on to debunk that. You have taken that bit out of context and try to pretend that Tesla argued or even proved that the moon rotates on its own axis, without mentioning the debunking, or the fact that he quite obviously and even famously was of the opinion that the moon does not rotate on its own axis. What you do is utterly shameless, but that’s just who you are, I guess.
Tesla’s layman editor argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis, Tesla himself proved our moon does rotate on its own axis once per orbit, the debate was settled.
What you do is utterly shameless, but that’s just who you are, I guess.
DREMPTY scores two points for denigration.
You cannot deny that what Ball4 does is a disgrace.
Actually, it is a disgrace that DREMT won’t learn from Tesla’s proof our moon rotates on its own axis once per orbit of earth with his wheel assembly momentum analysis.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
It seems the moon must rotate about the axis. It takes 27.3 days to rotate about its axis and 29.5 days to orbit the earth.
Yes, Ken, that the moon rotates on its own axis is settled science, it has day/night cycles due its rotating on its own axis. There are those intent on perpetuating a myth that wander in aimlessly around here though that provide much 3-ring circus entertainment.
Ball4 won’t even set Ken straight on his error.
ball4…”the moon rotates on its own axis is settled science, it has day/night cycles due its rotating on its own axis”.
If a jetliner could be re-fueled in flight as it flew at 35,000 feet, at constant velocity, it would experience the say day/night cycles as the Moon. Yet we know the jetliner cannot rotate about its COM or it would crash. It’s landing wheels side must always face the Earth as does the Moon’s near side.
If the flaps/ailerons were trimmed for level flight, the only velocity available to the plane is linear velocity. It orbits because gravity acts on it the same way it does the Moon to convert the plane’s linear velocity into an orbital path.
Gordon, correctly if your jetliner could be re-fueled in flight as it flew at 35,000 feet, at constant velocity wrt Earth surface below, it could experience the say day/night cycles as the Moon (depending on jetliner position) and the pilot would rotate the airplane once on its lateral axis per orbit of Earth without crashing into Earth just like our moon.
"the pilot would rotate the airplane once on its lateral axis per orbit of Earth"
Laughably wrong.
Only to those that do not understand physics well enough.
The pilot does not need to make any sort of adjustment to keep the airplane flying with the bottom of the aircraft aligned with the ground. It’s not like when he gets halfway around the world the plane would be flying backwards with the top of the aircraft aligned with the ground unless he gradually and continually rotated the airplane on its lateral axis to prevent that from happening!
“the plane would be flying backwards”
Lol, wrong axis DREMT, note I wrote lateral axis not vertical axis.
Yes, the lateral axis. About which the airplane pitches up or down.
But doesn’t ever go tail first in its safe Earth orbit as you wrote, just keeps parallel to ground on lateral axis all the way around.
Now you are getting it.
Ball4, a circumnavigating airplane exhibits the same basic motion as a ball-on-a-string, or Moon. It’s orbiting, not rotating about its axis.
You just don’t like reality.
A circumnavigating airplane exhibits the same basic motion as a ball-on-a-string, or our Moon, toy train and Tesla’s “fixt” ball M. They are all orbiting, not rotating about theor own axis as observed from the accelerated frame, and rotating once on their own axis per orbit as observed in the inertial frame. Clint R just doesn’t like reality or understand relativity.
A circumnavigating airplane exhibits the same basic motion as a ball-on-a-string, or our moon, toy train and Tesla’s “fixt” ball M. They are all orbiting, but not rotating about their own axes as observed from the inertial frame as shown in ftop_t’s demo.
DREMT also does not understand relativity.The observers on the plane rotate with the plane, not the observers on the surface. DREMT is on the plane so doesn’t observe the rotation as that is the acclerated frame.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-631433
“If a jetliner could be re-fueled in flight as it flew at 35,000 feet, at constant velocity”
A jet can’t fly both a) at 35,000 ft and 2) at constant velocity. Constant velocity would be a perfectly straight line, leaving earth behind as it headed out toward the stars.
This is a relatively minor point, but it shows that people have sloppy thinking and sloppy writing. No wonder there is a lot of misunderstanding.
“Constant velocity would be a perfectly straight line, leaving earth behind as it headed out toward the stars.”
Indeed. The output of the gyros in an airliner INS reports a constant and gradual downward pitch of about 9 degrees an hour at cruising speed as the aircraft follows the curve of the Earth. To avoid confusion this is edited out by the display software.
TS, you’re just trying to distort by being picky and pedantic. Anyone can throw out such nonsense.
For example, I could say a jet can’t leave “earth behind as it headed out toward the stars”. If I wanted to be picky, pedantic and desperate like you.
No wonder there is a lot of misunderstanding.
ken…”It seems the moon must rotate about the axis. It takes 27.3 days to rotate about its axis and 29.5 days to orbit the earth”.
The Moon cannot rotate about a local axis while keeping the same face toward the Earth. Try it. Take two coins, mark them appropriately, and try keeping the marked side of the moving coin against the rim of the stationary coin while completing a full 360 degree rotation of the moving coin.
I ran this past NASA and they dodged the question by claiming they are observing the lunar motion wrt the stars. That’s what the spinners are doing here but both are wrong. If the Moon is not rotating on a local axis it is not rotating on a long axis from any perspective or from any frame of reference.
Frames of reference are a product of the human mind, a dark place where ridiculous theoretical science is conceived.
Gordon,
Your two coin example makes no sense whatsoever. The outer coin is touching the inner? The moon does not touch the earth!
Take a coin which will represent the moon, and place mark on the outside edge. Take a second coin which will represent the earth. Make a revolution about the earth coin with the moon coin, keeping the mark facing the earth during the revolution. You have to continually rotate the moon coin about its axis to keep the mark facing the earth coin. And you ran your two coin thingy by NASA??? LMAO.
Just like ftop_t, you are clueless about reference frames, as well as curvilinear translation, and kinematics in general.
SGW,
As alarmists might say, easy peasy!
Just mount your imaginary coin on an imaginary track, like an imaginary train on a similar imaginary track.
I guess you might come up with imaginary objections.
Such is the imaginary fantasy world of climate alarmists.
Are you one?
How about the ‘imaginary” objection that such a coin on such a train doesn’t face the right direction when the train in on an elliptical path?
Reality is the test of a hypothesis, and this ‘coin on a train’ fails to match reality. The real moon turns at a constant rate relative to the ‘fixed stars, but you coin does not.
Tim,
Maybe you could define your “right direction”?
And you may have misread. I said an imaginary coin on an imaginary track, not a coin on a train.
As to your slightly odd last sentence, you might have to explain what you mean. The Moon’s orbit is elliptical. Even from the fixed stars, the Moon will seem to speed up, and slow down.
From the Earth, the elliptical orbit causes the Moon to appear to wobble back and forth, which of course it does not do. Other forms of libration make the Moon appear to be simultaneously rotating about axes perpendicular to each other.
Maybe you you stick with the imaginary. I have not presented any hypothesis, so you are just making stuff up – as usual.
Ken, look up “sidereal” and “synodic”.
Orbital motions can be confusing….
Ken
” It seems the moon must rotate about the axis. It takes 27.3 days to rotate about its axis and 29.5 days to orbit the earth. ”
Sounds good, but is not 100% correct: with 29.5 days, you mean the so-called synodic period (i.e. relative to the Sun); the sidereal period is 27.3 days, nowadays exactly identical to the rotation period.
But all in all, it’s fine to see one more person willing to trust in millennia of accumulated knowledge than in appealing to the ‘authority’ of an inventer lacking any knowledge in astronomy.
J.-P. D.
Nobody is appealing to authority, Bindidon, except maybe you.
But Bindidon does lack “any knowledge in astronomy”.
Sorry DREMT
You are a gullible believer of Tesla’s quickshot as well as what Aleksandar Tomic wrote, and hence you appeal to their ‘authority’.
You try to dissimulate and manipulate.
J.-P. D.
An appeal to authority would mean I was saying or implying that Tesla or Tomic is correct because of who they are. I have not done so. I’m tired of your false accusations and insults.
Well you have DREMT. You totally avoid Tesla’s momentum analysis of the wheel and ball M assembly & appeal directly to Tesla’s mistaken editor.
Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis. He wrote one very short section in one of his articles where he went through one of the biggest reasons why people think the moon rotates on its own axis, then went on to debunk that. You have taken that bit out of context and try to pretend that Tesla argued or even proved that the moon rotates on its own axis, without mentioning the debunking, or the fact that he quite obviously and even famously was of the opinion that the moon does not rotate on its own axis. What you do is utterly shameless, but thats just who you are, I guess.
Tesla’s editor argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis, Tesla himself proved our moon rotates on its own axis with his wheel and ball M assembly analysis which you yet again totally avoid.
What you do is utterly shameless, but that’s just who you are, I guess.
Still avoiding Tesla’s proof our moon rotates on its own axis once per orbit I see…tsk, tsk. Most readers know why DREMT must avoid Tesla’s proof: it’s a good one.
Tesla argued that the moon does not rotate on its own axis. He wrote one very short section in one of his articles where he went through one of the biggest reasons why people think the moon rotates on its own axis, then went on to debunk that. You have taken that bit out of context and try to pretend that Tesla argued or even proved that the moon rotates on its own axis, without mentioning the debunking, or the fact that he quite obviously and even famously was of the opinion that the moon does not rotate on its own axis. What you do is utterly shameless, but that’s just who you are, I guess.
The mathematical proof is here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicycloid#/media/File:Epizykloide_herleitung.svg
theta measures the orbital motion
alpha measures the axial motion
For a point “P” that is nearest the orbital axis, it can only remain that way if alpha = 0
This is a visualization of the proof.
When alpha is zero
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/btdmdw5ws8
When alpha is not zero
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/0vn3xmlrpq
Again ftop
I dont see why you continue to ignore facts and universal definitions from Astronomy and rigid-body-kinematics.
In astronomy and rigid body kinematics, the axial rotation is defined relative to the inertial frame.
Your Alpha (axial rotation) is the angular velocity relative to the vector r, which is rotating.
That is not relative to the inertial frame.
Ftop_t, nice work…but they won’t understand. They won’t get that an object which is rotating about an external axis, without rotating about its own center of mass, moves as per the “moon on the left”, here:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
and that to keep axial rotation separate to that motion, you must let your alpha measure the axial rotation.
If theta measures the orbital motion then alpha must measure the axial rotation.
If alpha measures the axial rotation then theta must measure the orbital motion.
It has nothing to do with reference frames, and everything to do with how you define “orbital motion without axial rotation”. Is it as per the “moon on the left”, or as per the “moon on the right”? That is the question.
Nate 9:49am: “That is not relative to the inertial frame.”
Emphasis added. Yes, Nate, relativity is the key concept that Tesla, ftop_t, and DREMT are missing. Using my watch, it takes around 24 seconds for the alpha=0 contraption to make a complete 360 circle. The distance traveled is around 31.4 or say 1.308 units/sec. Speed of light is 186,000 miles/sec.
So if ftop’s 5 units of radius are equal to say 40,000 miles or (8,000 miles/unit) then the motion is impossible w/relativity considered yet as can be seen ftop_t’s contraption is still orbiting without change. As Tesla showed with his ball M momentum conservation analysis: mass, energy, and momentum conservation are essential to a physical understanding of the massive moon motion and cannot be ignored as does Tesla convincing himself ball M is welded, DREMT, and ftop_t, et. al.
I should add, the only way that the “Spinners” can claim the “moon on the left” is rotating on its own axis is if they define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as movement like the “moon on the right”. It’s as simple as that. It has nothing to do with choosing “the inertial reference frame” over “the accelerating frame”. It all comes down to how you want to see “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
Relativity teaches it all comes down to where you want to see “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
There are two options, Ball4. The “moon on the left”, and the “moon on the right”. The two are completely different motions, regardless of reference frame. So the difference between the “Spinners” and the “Non-Spinners” positions transcends reference frames.
@Nate,
I have acknowledged that determining orientation of an object in space through universal definitions is required because all objects are in motion.
That does not mean that the physical characteristics of the motion are accurately captured in the choices used to determine a universal process for orientation
https://openstax.org/books/physics/pages/6-1-angle-of-rotation-and-angular-velocity
In Figure 6.6, with the image of the fly on the record player, you can claim its orientation is because it translated in a straight line from 12 o’clock to 3 o’clock and turned 90 degrees clockwise to locate the position of the fly; but that is not how it got there.
The actual motion is the fly remained fixed at its position (no axial rotation) on the record and the record turned.
theta moved 90 degrees (record turning)
alpha remained ZERO (fly is in the same position on the record with no axial rotation
The fly’s dv/dt is not zero though, ftop_t, thus the fly has nonzero acceleration facing E then S. The ref. frame attached to the fly is thus an accelerated frame. Velocity does not simply carry a scalar quantity; velocity is a vector.
The rotational on its own axis inertia of the fly on the record must be considered to get the moment of inertia of the record plus fly correct for system rotational momentum and rotational energy conservation. If the fly flies away both its linear and rotational momentum & rotational energy must be subtracted from the system due conservation principles.
The fly’s motion can only possibly be considered to include axial rotation if you think of it as a combination of the motion of the “moon on the right” (although CW instead of CCW) plus rotation about its own center of mass. In other words, you have to define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as being movement like the “moon on the right” in order to see it that way.
Correctly to define “orbital motion without axial rotation” of the fly being movement like the fly is as observed from the accelerated frame attached to the fly. This keeps momentum and energy conserved for the record assembly just like Tesla proved, so go argue with Tesla’s proof.
NB: The change in orientation of the fly means the fly has accelerated since its dv/dt is then nonzero so Gordon and DREMT admitting the moon changes orientation constituted their agreement to accelerated frames matter.
Again, the fly’s motion can only possibly be considered to include axial rotation if you think of it as a combination of the motion of the “moon on the right” (although CW instead of CCW) plus rotation about its own center of mass. In other words, you have to define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as being movement like the “moon on the right” in order to see it that way.
Not only DREMT, the fly accelerates just by changing its orientation in the two positions which you agree so does the moon change orientation, so too the frame attached to moon is an accelerated frame.
Once again, the fly’s motion can only possibly be considered to include axial rotation if you think of it as a combination of the motion of the “moon on the right” (although CW instead of CCW) plus rotation about its own center of mass. In other words, you have to define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as being movement like the “moon on the right” in order to see it that way.
ftop_t moans:
The mathematical proof is here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicycloid#/media/File:Epizykloide_herleitung.svg
theta measures the orbital motion
alpha measures the axial motion
It was already explained to you that alpha does NOT represent the axial rotation of the outer circle. Alpha represents the axial rotation of the outer circle with respect to a non-inertial reference frame rotating at the same rate as the orbital angular velocity of the focus of the outer circle.
Yet you continue with this fallacy. You are out of your league here. It’s obvious you have not studied kinematics.
Yep, they didn’t understand.
ftop_t wails:
The actual motion is the fly remained fixed at its position (no axial rotation) on the record and the record turned.
We use the inertial reference frame to describe the fly’s motion. You are using the rotating reference frame of the record.
Here is what Purdue University lecture notes say for a course in advanced dynamics:
Only when we go to laws of motion, the reference frame needs to be the inertial frame. From the point of view of kinematics, no
reference frame is more fundamental or absolute.
https://engineering.purdue.edu/ME562/bajaj562chpt2.pdf
This will never make sense unless you understand the above.
The fly has rotated 90 degrees on its own axis in its movement from the noon position to the 3:00 position.
For the fourth time, the fly’s motion can only possibly be considered to include axial rotation if you think of it as a combination of the motion of the “moon on the right” (although CW instead of CCW) plus rotation about its own center of mass. In other words, you have to define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as being movement like the “moon on the right” in order to see it that way.
DREMT,
Don’t even bother responding to me. I am not going to bother responding to your ignorant comments.
What I have said is correct, and simply a matter of basic logic.
ClintR’s statement represents the non spinner cult’s position perfectly:
Forget kinematics, and learn orbital motion!
Forget science and believe what we say.
OK, SGW.
FTOP
“That does not mean that the physical characteristics of the motion are accurately captured in the choices used to determine a universal process for orientation”
What physical characteristics?
Your notions about ‘natural’ orientation changes for objects travelling on curved paths are simply not correct.
Again, Kinematics gives the system for DESCRIBING motion, the mechanism is not considered.
Dynamics describes the causes of motion, Forces, Torques, Newton’s Laws.
Newton was content to use the same system for Kinematics that Astrophysics and engineering uses today.
He found that it captured the physical characteristics of orbits quite well.
“The actual motion is the fly remained fixed at its position (no axial rotation) on the record and the record turned.”
Again, we have another rigid body rotator (inclu fly).
That is NOT a good model for a planet or Moon in orbit.
A planet is not attached to any rigid body that is rotating and causing it to move as it does.
A planet is an independent body that has its own trajectory thru space, its own fixed rotation rate and axis of rotation that can be tilted to its orbit (as the Moon’s is).
Unlike the fly, its orbit is elliptical. With a fixed rotation rate, around a tilted axis, it will exhibit libration.
Thus a rigid body model will fail to describe its motion, nor the mechanism for its motion.
What is the point?
@Nate,
So the standard space flight maneuver of using gravity to turn an spacecraft as part of long range missions is false?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_turn#:~:text=A%20gravity%20turn%20or%20zero,vehicle%20onto%20its%20desired%20trajectory.
“Use in orbital redirection
For spacecraft missions where large changes in the direction of flight are necessary, direct propulsion by the spacecraft may not be feasible due to the large delta-v requirement. In these cases it may be possible to perform a flyby of a nearby planet or moon, using its gravitational attraction to alter the ship’s direction of flight. Although this maneuver is very similar to the gravitational slingshot it differs in that a slingshot often implies a change in both speed and direction whereas the gravity turn only changes the direction of flight.
A variant of this maneuver, the free return trajectory allows the spacecraft to depart from a planet, circle another planet once, and return to the starting planet using propulsion only during the initial departure burn. Although in theory it is possible to execute a perfect free return trajectory, in practice small correction burns are often necessary during the flight. Even though it does not require a burn for the return trip, other return trajectory types, such as an aerodynamic turn, can result in a lower total delta-v for the mission.”
The entire steering process of a free return trajectory is achieved by using the gravitational pull of a planetary object to gain angular momentum and change the direction of the spacecraft.
The change in direction and orientation is derived from the tangential velocity interacting with the angular velocity from the gravitational acceleration.
Without any thrusters, a spaceship can leave earth, circle the moon and return with the nose of the ship always pointing in the path of the trajectory.
The spaceship does not return to earth backwards.
ftop,
Gravity can change the path thru space of an object. I have always agreed to that.
“The change in direction and orientation is derived from the tangential velocity interacting with the angular velocity from the gravitational acceleration.”
But a path change or trajectory change does NOT imply an ORIENTATIONAL change.
You are mixing the two with no justification.
“The spaceship does not return to earth backwards.”
Actually, in order to return to Earth surface, it needs to point backwards and fire its engine, thus slowing itself down.
Orienting backwards or forwards is all accomplished with firing retrorockets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WsuNSuIhG0
FTOP the beginning of this video shows that spacecraft will naturally stay oriented to the stars, UNLESS, some mechanism is included to align it with its orbital path.
Ken: This is not evidence that the moon is separately rotating. This is merely evidence that the earth is orbiting the sun. The sidereal period (27.3 days) the the correct rotation period.
Ball4: The existence of day/night is ALSO not evidence for/against rotation. If the moon rotated once every 365.24 earth days, then it would keep the same side to the sun (ie no day/night cycles on the moon) but it would be rotating.
IF our moon rotated once every 365.24 earth days but it doesn’t, so the evidence stands, our moon rotates on its own axis once per orbit exhibiting day/night cycles. Just like ftop_t demonstrated here including the sun:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-584290
You have linked to something that proves you wrong, Ball4. Please continue.
@Ball4,
I have asked you multiple times to not present something you completely lack understanding of.
In the depiction, alpha = 0 (which means no axial rotation)
Line 31 holds the value for the axial rotation and it is ZERO
If you want to see what it looks like when the rotation is:
1 axial per 1 orbital, you have to set Line 32 as:
t = s (now both axial and orbital are the same
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/6duud5dju9
DON’T GET IT WRONG AGAIN!!
Up thread I provided the mathematical proof (recopied here)
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-633196
The mathematical proof is here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicycloid#/media/File:Epizykloide_herleitung.svg
theta measures the orbital motion
alpha measures the axial motion
For a point “P” that is nearest the orbital axis, it can only remain that way if alpha = 0
This is a visualization of the proof.
When alpha is zero
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/btdmdw5ws8
When alpha is not zero
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/0vn3xmlrpq
ftop_t 8:01 am: “In the depiction, alpha = 0 (which means no axial rotation)”
ftop_t, in the depiction & your math, for alpha = 0 and d(alpha)/dt = 0 (which mean no axial rotation in your accelerated frame of reference).
Your accelerated frame of reference is itself spinning once per orbit relative to the inertial frame of cartesian coordinates meaning your outer ball for alpha = 0 rotates once on its axis per orbit in the inertial frame. I know relativity is hard but you seem capable to up your game and understand relativity for yourself where Tesla had a great opportunity here but failed to make that giant leap.
Tesla elegantly solved the problem using a momentum approach which is a conserved quantity remaining the same amount across ref. frames and you can quickly find his solution with a little google fu. It is way clearer than I can write about here using your construct but I can do that following Tesla’s approach if you would like. Tesla’s conclusion was that to conserve momentum his “fixt” ball M MUST rotate once per orbit inertially on its own axis to keep the same face to the center.
Tesla then asked himself how could that be? because ball M when “fixt” is welded to the wheel assembly spokes so can’t possibly rotate on its own axis! Tesla had a great opportunity here in 1919 to discover relati