Home/BlogThe Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for August, 2021 was +0.17 deg. C, down slightly from the July, 2021 value of +0.20 deg. C.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 has now dropped slightly, at +0.13 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 20 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2020 01 0.42 0.44 0.40 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 0.27 0.53 0.81 -0.95 -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 0.84 -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 0.27 0.26
2020 08 0.30 0.34 0.26 0.45 0.35 0.30 0.24
2020 09 0.40 0.42 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 0.21 -0.07 0.29 0.44 0.13
2021 01 0.12 0.34 -0.09 -0.08 0.36 0.50 -0.52
2021 02 0.20 0.32 0.08 -0.14 -0.65 0.07 -0.27
2021 03 -0.01 0.13 -0.14 -0.29 0.59 -0.78 -0.79
2021 04 -0.05 0.05 -0.15 -0.28 -0.02 0.02 0.29
2021 05 0.08 0.14 0.03 0.06 -0.41 -0.04 0.02
2021 06 -0.01 0.31 -0.32 -0.14 1.44 0.63 -0.76
2021 07 0.20 0.33 0.07 0.13 0.58 0.43 0.80
2021 08 0.17 0.27 0.08 0.07 0.33 0.83 -0.02
The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for August, 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
Thanks for this update! It would be great if we could get the confidence intervals for the trend. Point estimates should never be published without confidence intervals. Keep up the good work!
The 95% confidence intervals for the trend can be found once the August data are updated on this site: http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
They usually wait until the official records are published.
SE is +/- .05 meaning a range of .085 per decade to .185 per decade.
Looking at the data it appears the SE is generated by natural variation. And since it appears that natural variation has been mostly in a positive trend since 1980 it seems likely the actual man made trend leans toward a significantly lower rate of warming, but thats been well known (IPCC et al) for a long time. Just that such information is really tough on budgets explaining the high volume of political hyperbole surrounding the science to keep the coffers full.
Confidence intervals for the trend are the most difficult to estimate, because decisions have been made, for example, about what satellite is drifting in its calibration and which isn’t. If we included the one we think is drifting, then the trend would change. Can we be sure it’s the one drifting, and not the other satellite? No, not absolutely sure. But I don’t know how to evaluate that uncertainty as a confidence interval. I believe some people call this “structural uncertainty”. This is a major reason why the RSS trends differ from our (UAH) trends (except in the tropics, where they are pretty close to one another).
Roy W Spencer
You are obviously right.
But the uncertainty you are talking about is not what we miss in what you publish, namely a simple standard error calculation.
It does not need to be as elaborate as what Kevin Cowtan or Nick Stokes provide in their trend calculation software.
Simply what Excel provides would be enough…
Not everybody visiting your blog has Excel, Libre Office Calc or the like on his computer.
J.-P. D.
Bindidon says: It does not need to be as elaborate as what Kevin Cowtan or Nick Stokes provide in their trend calculation software.
Simply what Excel provides would be enough
As far as I know the Excel estimate for trend uncertainty fails with autocorrelated data. The appendix to Foster/Rahmstorf 2011 discusses this issue and a formulation for trend uncertainty with autocorrelated data series which is the basis for Cowtan’s calculator.
In any case this gives the uncertainty of the trend estimate given a data series that is presumed to be unbiased. Structural uncertainty is a different animal. The best treatment of this in this context is Mears etal 2011.
Things differ if you are just using the measurements as recorded and the ‘true temperature’ that you think they represent.
Mark B
” As far as I know the Excel estimate for trend uncertainty fails with autocorrelated data. ”
Thanks, this is known to me.
The point was discussed ad nauseam at WUWT years ago, as Nick Stokes tried to eplain that to ‘specialists’ like… the Third Viscount, yeah.
I compared both here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-827600
But if you compare Excel’s trend for e.g. UAH since Dec ’78 with Kevin Cowtan’s, you obtain the same value for both trend and SE.
*
” Structural uncertainty is a different animal. The best treatment of this in this context is Mears et al 2011.”
YES.
For data like this, the issue of correlation comes into determining the ‘goodness’ of fit, and the error on fit parameters.
Straight lines always show a bad fit.
@Bindidon
the earth is 57,308,738 square miles. There are roughly 30,000 land surface stations globally. They would need to have a measurement range of 1,910 square miles.
do you still want to talk about confidence intervals? Do you believe the 30,000 surface stations more accurately portray the global temperature? Do the land surface stations have better range? How?
To recap:
Bindidon thinks a drifting satellite that can measure the entire globe is less accurate than 30,000 land surface stations, only 7,000 of which have long term records.
This is a major reason why the RSS trends differ from our (UAH) trends (except in the tropics, where they are pretty close to one another).
There are a lot of satellites up there now.
There are various GPS installations by different organizations and countries.
While some may be reluctant to share data I am sure overall in this field the more cross correlation the better.
I am sure you know pretty much exactly where the satellites are or should be.
The amount of drift should be pretty obvious in a range of uncertainty that you are happy about, or otherwise you would not be able to give functional data.
This leads to the question not of uncertainty but what is it about the uncertainty that RSS has chosen to use?
There must be reasonable guidelines around drift and position or else one does not have a functioning system.
If there are major discrepancies using standardized systems someone is not following the rule book.
I note an incorrect comment below by Willard about outliers. I believe you have to correlate your data with the other known ground and balloon data and are happy doing so.
As does RSS.
RSS did a major change to their drift assumptions to realign their data with the warming data form the ground systems which to me would seem the reason for the difference.
This would have taken the form of adjustments to their drift data to make their temperature readouts higher?
angech
” RSS did a major change to their drift assumptions to realign their data with the warming data form the ground systems which to me would seem the reason for the difference. ”
Where do you have that stuff from? WUWT?
Roy Spencer has clearly explained that it has nothing to do with any alignment on surface data.
RSS and UAH differ on which NOAA satellites do give the correct data.
Anything else is cheap polemic.
RSS and UAH differ on which NOAA satellites do give the correct data.
No Bindinon, that is not what he said.
The data is correct whichever satellites they use.
Can we agree on that?
What Dr Spencer did say is that the interpretation of the satellite positions differs between the two groups.
The interpretation of which one is drifting [in fact they are all drifting a bit] and how to reconcile the accurate readings with the positions is the problem [uncertainty]
Bindinon
“RSS and UAH differ on which NOAA satellites do give the correct data.”
Not correct?
December 2019, the UAH linear temperature trend 1979-2019 shows a warming of +0.13 C/decade.
For comparison, a different group, Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), also analyzes the MSU data. From their data: the RSS linear temperature trend shows a warming of +0.208 C/decade.
Christy et al. asserted in a 2007 paper that the tropical temperature trends from radiosondes matches more closely with their v5.2 UAH-TLT dataset than with RSS v2.1.
Much of the difference, at least in the Lower troposphere global average decadal trend between UAH and RSS, had been removed with the release of RSS version 3.3 in January 2011, at which time the RSS and UAH TLT were now within 0.003 K/decade of one another. Significant differences remained, in the Mid Troposphere (TMT) decadal trends. In June 2017 RSS released version 4 which significantly increased the trend from 0.136 to 0.184 K/decade substantially increasing the difference again
“RSS and UAH differ on which NOAA satellites do give the correct data.”
Around 2000-2005 they do.
Hugo…”It would be great if we could get the confidence intervals for the trend”.
***
Why do you need a confidence level for real data? That requires an error margin and UAH usually publishes an error margin.
Robertson
Thanks for showing us all how dumb, brazen and ignorant you are.
Bindidon,
Your personal criticism of Robertson is unfortunate. The reality is that any measure of standard error and associated confidence limits is a function of the assumed statistical model. As such it is an assumption-based estimate. In contrast, the monthly and 13-month moving averages are point measures that are a function of what was actually measured. There will be errors in those measurements but no statistical technique can tell you what those errors might be. In fact, all of the statistical measures assume the measurements themselves were made without error. In contrast, the statistical analysis is all about trying to estimate the extent to which the natural and real variability in the system over time as measured is fundamental to the real system or simply due to random chance. Errors such as those created by satellite drift, which are created by systemic features of the measuring system are not amenable to statistical analysis. This is a key reason why RSS and UAH can come up with different estimates.
To understand which is the most reliable, you have to identify the detailed measuring protocols used by each system and then make a subjective judgement as to which is likely to be the more reliable. Given that this process is subjective rather than objective, reasonable people can come to different conclusions as to which system they prefer.
Bindi is an arrogant psychopath. That’s what arrogant psychopaths do.
KeithW
Sorry, I’m afraid that do don’t know ANYTHING about Gordon Robertson, who is a persistent denialist of anything he subjectively feels a need to discredit: Lunar spin, Einstein, relativity, viral diseases, GHE, etc etc etc.
*
” That requires an error margin and UAH usually publishes an error margin. ”
That was the point here, where Robertson publishes nonsense as usual.
What we here were discussing about was not measuring uncertainty based on systemic errors and the like, but… simply a little information about the standard error many asked for since quite a while.
And, as you can see, there was some agreement about that, wasn’t it? Simply look at:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-827729
*
If you were permanently stalked by an Ignoramus like Robertson, you certainly wouldn’t keep so pretty cool, Sir.
Rgds
J.-P. D.
Anderson
Under an ‘arrogant psychopath I rather understand those people who name bloodthirsty dictators like Augusto Pinochet ‘Leftists’.
People like you, Anderson.
“psychopath.”
Really, Stephen, swinging for the fences and striking out there…
Maybe you need to adjust your meds??
It’s his nature. He’s a leftist like you.
Unfortunately there are no meds to fix ignorance.
“The reality is that any measure of standard error and associated confidence limits is a function of the assumed statistical model. As such it is an assumption-based estimate. In contrast, the monthly and 13-month moving averages are point measures that are a function of what was actually measured. There will be errors in those measurements but no statistical technique can tell you what those errors might be. In fact, all of the statistical measures assume the measurements themselves were made without error. In contrast, the statistical analysis is all about trying to estimate the extent to which the natural and real variability in the system over time as measured is fundamental to the real system or simply due to random chance.”
Agreed.
August has been the opposite to July in the UK, more like winter. Struggling to see a warming world driven by CO2, I wished.
Same in Japan.
Similar in Germany, August wasn’t terribly nice.
But looking backwards in the archive of our weather web site gave this:
1. 2021 since March
https://postimg.cc/LJpCMc67
2. 2014 since March
https://postimg.cc/MccWJfGd
OK, 2021 is a bit worse, but not really by much.
This years weather in SW Scotland has been cool which is reflected in the poor growth in plants and crops. April and May were c. 2 deg C below long term average. June was mediocre and cool. July had some nice weather and a mini heatwave in August wk 1 my central heating kicked in for at least one morning and several mornings in wk4 August (not evenings though).
Plant and crop performance while not exclusively warmth related (sunshine and precipitation also) does give a very good integrated/average proxy to warmth, especially grass. I follow when the green keepers start to cut the greens on our coastal link golf courses. Grass only starts to grow as soil temperatures approach 10 deg C, last year was late to start growing this year was late to start growing. Autumn is harder to gauge but spring grass growing is a big proxy indicator which in this region includes the Gulf Stream warming effect. Our British Met office proclaims all events they can as all global warming and ignore the obvious cold story…..
As a physicist graduate I am taking much more interest in the science proper. I am appalled as what is passed as science when it is clearly not. Thank goodness for people like Dr Spencer prepared to publish data for people like me to investigate the science as best I can somI may develop an informed opinion and position.
AGW porn is AMOC stops and the UK glaciates. Climate change is something that cant be judged locally, only globally. No doubt the earth has warmed some the past 150 years, but no doubt its not a linear relationship to atmospheric carbon and if there are cycles then quantifying them remains a key challenge, along with adequately accounting for UHI and feedbacks. The other certainty is too much of climate mitigation creates higher prices which reduces living standards from what they could be. Most people are not in favor of trading that certain downside for uncertain upside.
0.13 vs 0.14, due to rounding of the ..fifth decimal point? LOL! Yet it had to happen at some point, if climate is stagnant and again within the 1998-2015 envelope.
Again I have to point out to the fact, it is a warming starting in the 1970s and very well aligns with increase of air travel.
“Again I have to point out to the fact, it is a warming starting in the 1970s and very well aligns with increase of air travel.”
It also aligns with swearing on TV.
I am pretty certain that declined in the last years, because PC and so on. Unlike swearing however, cirrus clouds, even the artificial ones, produce a significant GHE.
Has it been quantified? Is it significant compared to AGW?
Well that would be AGW anyhow, I mean Avionic Global Warming 😉
I yet have to work on that, so I can not give you a quantification. My guess however is, that it will dominate CO2 forcing by far, since all the patterns of warming fit perfectly to it. And I do know CO2 can not be responsible, for its ECS potential is hugely exaggerated. That is both in regard to pure 2xCO2 forcing (only 2W/m2, or 0.53K instead of 3.7W/m2 and 1.1K), as well as vapor feedback.
https://greenhousedefect.com/the-holy-grail-of-ecs/the-2xco2-forcing-disaster
On the other side the IPCC vigorously downplays the contrail effect, suggesting some ludicrous 0.01W/m2 of forcing or so.
“My guess however is, that it will dominate CO2 forcing by far,”
IOW, No, not at all. It could well be much smaller.
“since all the patterns of warming fit perfectly to it.”
Got measurements?
You seem comfortable attributing GW to your non-quantified speculation?
That aint science.
“And I do know CO2 can not be responsible”
Is that also based on a guess? It disagrees with lots of published work.
@Nate
“My guess..” .. “That aint science”
That is very smart! It is like me giving you the answer, you repeating what I just told you, and then teaching me over the answer I just gave you. Probably the most insanly stupid thing one could only imagine. What is your IQ again? A little recommendation from me to you..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKjxFJfcrcA
“It could well be much smaller.”
Or larger. You need something to back that direction up.
“then teaching me over the answer I just gave you”
Yep, looks like you had no idea that drawing conclusions, as you did, based on qualitative guesses is a non-starter in the physical sciences.
Everyone ought to apply skepticism to ‘science’ provided by political-agenda-driven blogs, which have no requirement to back up their claims with true facts and evidence.
“The reality is that any measure of standard error and associated confidence limits is a function of the assumed statistical model. As such it is an assumption-based estimate. In contrast, the monthly and 13-month moving averages are point measures that are a function of what was actually measured. There will be errors in those measurements but no statistical technique can tell you what those errors might be. In fact, all of the statistical measures assume the measurements themselves were made without error. In contrast, the statistical analysis is all about trying to estimate the extent to which the natural and real variability in the system over time as measured is fundamental to the real system or simply due to random chance.”
Btw. if I say “guess”, that means educated guess, based on a lot of insights which I can not communicate within a few lines. Generally my “guess” exceeds the certainty level of the IPCC’s “very high confidence”.
I have only started to explore the subject, and how the contrail warming has been downplayed. Obviously we can guess the “why”. Here is a great find from NASA:
“This result shows the increased cirrus coverage, attributable to air traffic, could account for nearly all of the warming observed over the United States for nearly 20 years starting in 1975”
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/releases/2004/04-140.html
LOL! Sure you would not want that to spread, if you try to fool everyone into “it can only be CO2” ;)))
“Generally my ‘guess’ exceeds the certainty level of the IPCC’s ‘very high confidence’.”
Sure. You have already admitted that this effect has not been quantified.
So your ‘certainty’ about its significance in comparison to GHG effects, which are quantified, simply makes no sense!
This is just one more ‘How to prove all of Climate Science wrong with this one simple trick’, click bait, to add to the growing list.
Read some papers, if any, that estimate the magnitude of this effect. Then come back and make an actual argument.
@Nate
..says the troll who posted no less than 50(!) times on this thread alone. Is trolling a full time job? Who pays you?
Good question:
https://greenhousedefect.com/contact
“50(!) times”
Way less than 238 of the top poster.
A lot of posters seem to double, triple, and quadruple-down on their misinformation, as you do.
Reminder:
https://twitter.com/airscottdenning/status/1118628870641594370
Being an “outlier” doesn’t automatically make UAH numbers wrong.
You are an outlier in this comments section.
That doesn’t automatically make you wrong.
You are wrong.
But not because you are an outlier!
More generally, Troglodyte, being an X does not automatically make a Y.
willard…”UAH is a ridiculous outlier”.
***
Will you refrain from posting propaganda on this scientific site? Besides, I have Twitter blocked and cannot access any drivel posted there. Why would any serious person post there?
Thank you for your concerns, guy who keeps posting tin foil stuff.
Willard: Starting at 1 again I see.
The Only Trick of Roy’s One-Trick Pony (v.3):
0. Almost suggest something relevant;
1. When challenged, brag;
2. When pinned down, Just Ask Questions;
3. When countered, try to insult
1.
Yawn, I guess that makes the SSTs another outlier. Almost identical and unaffected by UHI, etc.
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
Oh yeah, over 70% of the planet’s surface as well. The most likely situation is the highly adjusted surface land data is wrong.
You were saying?
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/best-lower/from:1979/to/plot/uah6/from:1979/to/trend/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1979/to
Richard,
Why are you comparing UAH GLOBAL T trend to surface OCEAN T trend?
UAH Ocean Trend is lower than Global or Land.
UAH trends
Global 0.14
Land 0.18
Ocean 0.12
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 has now dropped slightly, at +0.13 C/decade
Some will get real busy now, You gonna have to reslice redice your numberz
Yes Eben!
In my UAH spreadsheet, the trend went down from 0.1351 to 0.1350!
Oh dear! I dare to keep at 0.14 C / decade. Thousand apologies!
Roy Spencer very probably uses a different tool, calculating trend in a slightly different way, moving a bit below 0.135 and thus, when rouding to 2 places after the decimal point, down from 0.14 to 0.13 C / decade.
But I guess the difference between old and new trend in his data won’t be terribly higher.
I have never heard of rounding down to odd from 0.135.
The rules I have used are .5 rounds to make the previous digit even, or always round .5 up.
Methinks something is shabby in Denmark.
Denmark? Ooops.
Maybe you misunderstood me.
What I meant was that, if Roy Spencer had e.g. 0.135 / decade at the end of July and 0.134 at end of August, rounding to 2datdp gave 0.14 last month, and… 0.13 now.
OK?
Yes, OK
I didn’t see all the digits, I thought he was rounding .135 to .13
binny…”Roy Spencer very probably uses a different tool, calculating trend in a slightly different way…”
***
No Binny, Roy is a professional with a degree in meteorology and applies statistics correctly. You are a hacker who uses Excel incorrectly.
Robertson
Thanks for showing us all how dumb, brazen and ignorant you are.
Looks like the Arctic is the warmest place on earth right now (relatively speaking), but the ice refuses to melt away to oblivion like the global warming alarmists say it is. On August 31, 2021 the National Snow and Ice Data Center measured the sea ice extent at 5,218,000 km^2. That is 910,000 km^2 higher than on the same day last year, and is 1,489,000 km^2 higher on the same day back in 2012 when the record minimum occurred. The more the alarmists claim the Arctic ice is melting away, the more nature proves them wrong. 2021 will make 9 years in a row that the annual Arctic ice extent minimum is higher than the 2012 minimum. Eventually, the Arctic ice extent record low of 3,387,000 km^2 will have to be broken if the Arctic ice is indeed melting away. 9 years and counting – it isn’t happening. I think this is a natural multi-decadal cycle. Humans have very little, if any to do with the Arctic ice.
I was an operational weather forecaster for 40 years. What do you geo-scientists think?
Thanks for that. I’m going to guess that there there will be no downward trend with the soon to come summer min ice extent, since 2007.
Ya think?
That is exactly what I think. From 2007 to 2021, the annual sea ice minimum will be a flat line. You will hear nothing in the mainstream news media about the Arctic ice or Greenland this year. Forget Antarctica!
Rob Mitchell
Though I’m not a geo-scientist, I nonetheless dare to reply.
*
Firstly, it makes few sense to look at a single day and to compare the extents in several years for that day. This is subject to much variation.
From my layman point of view, the more correct method is to build, for recent years / averages, the mean of the year and of the averages till that day, here Aug 31:
81-10 12.63
2012 11.78
2021 11.60
2020 11.51
2017 11.48
2018 11.45
16-20 11.45
2016 11.42
2019 11.37
Here you see that 2012, though having had the most impressive melt season, is on second place, just below the 1981-2010 average.
This is simply due to the fact that (ignored by all Alarmists), 2012 had a very impressive recovery season as well (see graph below).
2021 is on third place, but not by much.
*
Secondly, it makes also few sense to take, as was done during decades, the September average as a comparison level, giving 2012 as the lowest.
The reason why it has stopped to be you see here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QBlh325tHF-4NRlWsHf_6sgskO_ipyse/view
You see on the chart how 2012 behaved during the winter.
And since 2019 you see, for the year’s sea ice minimum, an amazing shift toward the year’s end.
This is the reason why September 2012 no longer is lowest on a monthly chart:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l97i–7Y_ZQXgROnNCeC6vlwQbEHTEWi/view
Lowest is now October 2020.
*
And what the Alarmists deliberately ignore as well, is how 2012 behaved… in the Antarctic :- )
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PdqOctb7zaMgvdMdX2sId1g_o7U13mM-/view
During 2012, the Antarctic sea ice extent practically didn’t go below the 1981-2010 average.
*
And finally, we look in the global sea ice extent till Aug 31:
81-10 22.27
2012 21.72
2021 21.39
2016 20.94
2020 20.83
16-20 20.48
2018 20.46
2019 20.07
2017 20.07
We will see whether or not 2021 is the beginning of a new era…
binny…”From my layman point of view,…”
***
You omitted a few adjectives…you mean:
“From my biased, alarmist, layman point of view,…”.
Robertson
Thanks for showing us all how dumb, brazen and ignorant you are.
August of 2016 was hotter than this year’s, right? Unlinke July.
Yes. But the change year on year swings back and forth.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/uah-month-on-month.jpeg
“This is the reason why September 2012 no longer is lowest on a monthly chart:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l97i–7Y_ZQXgROnNCeC6vlwQbEHTEWi/view
Lowest is now October 2020.”
October 2020 was the biggest deviation (downward) from normal (for any month). September 2012 is still the lowest Arctic sea ice extent in absolute terms, for the satellite record.
barry
You are ‘plain right’ : 3.34 vs. 3.71 M.
I confess: I don’t look very often at absolute data, because so many climate data sources (hum hum: beginning with… UAH) do not show them :- )
Your link sez: ‘Page not found’; here is my most recent one:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1J9kx750_CtARv4sKfXBddRnkZm3E2U4v/view
But I have to protect Roy Spencer from my own ‘criticism’: he at least offers the possibility of recovering absolute values from anomaly and climatology data, even if that is no trivial job.
Best regards from Germoney
J.-P. D.
Format note:
I copied that link direct from your post along with the text.
Copying the link removes one of the 2 hyphens in it, breaking the link. This also happens if I copy and paste the link from your post into an address bar. So you can only open the link by clicking it in your post – or adding back in the hyphen in the address bar.
Annoying website.
The Arctic ice melt has clearly slowed down between 2007 and 2021. I am eager to see if there is indeed a “new era” coming up.
Rob Mitchell
I understand what you mean… but it is a fact that you keep fixated on the melt season
2012 9 3.57
2020 9 3.92
2007 9 4.27
2019 9 4.32
2016 9 4.51
2011 9 4.56
2015 9 4.62
2008 9 4.69
2018 9 4.71
2017 9 4.80
while not looking at the recovery season.
Would you do that, by looking at yearly averages combining the two, you then would see the following:
2016 10.16
2020 10.18
2019 10.21
2018 10.35
2017 10.40
2012 10.42
2007 10.50
2011 10.51
2015 10.59
2010 10.73
Source
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/monthly/data/
But let me add that the Antarctic sea ice is in best form!
Willard
Eco worriers never apologise for there mistakes. They just make up more outlandish claims.
Your opinion that UAH is an outlier because it doesn’t agree with your religious views is just another mistake.
UAH simply report the data not comment on its implications.
> UAH simply report the data
We’re at Roy’s, Mark:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/02/a-tribute-to-rush-limbaugh/
Will
Speaking of religion, what is your favorite kind of pew? Oak or Maple?
You tell me, o-puppy:
https://climateball.net/but-religion/
What has politics to do with science?
La Niña on the way.
http://www.bom.gov.au/archive/oceanography/ocean_anals/IDYOC007/IDYOC007.202108.gif
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino3.png
one wishes,
Pretty much all of the ENSO forecasts sites think so.
You can literally calculate those 95% confidence intervals yourself. All of the raw data is provided, and if I recall correctly, is about plus minus 0.01C per decade.
There is a purely statistical confidence interval, assuming all variation is random. That one is indeed straightforward to calculate yourself. Someone linked o a site that provides that result.
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
There is also the issue of whether the satellites are providing accurate data. If there is a systematic trend in the satellites, that would need to be added/subtracted to get the true trend. This one cannot be calculated yourself without detailed knowledge of the satellites and their sensors.
tim…”There is also the issue of whether the satellites are providing accurate data”.
***
Propaganda from those alarmists trying to discredit sat data. Besides, you have a nerve raising such a possibility when the surface record has been altered to the point it is fiction.
Gordon,
ALL data has uncertainly! This is not ‘discrediting the data’, merely agreeing with Dr. Roy (and every other scientist and engineer) that real measurements have uncertainty.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-827340
“If there is a systematic trend in the satellites, that would need to be added/subtracted to get the true trend.”
If there is no systematic trend in the satellites, which seem to agree pretty well with each other over the last decade at least, then your comment is pointless speculation.
The point is they disagree on the long term trend by a lot, as Roy duly noted.
“The point is they disagree on the long term trend by a lot, as Roy duly noted.”
If you split the period into 2 portions, then the differences in the last decade or so are minor indeed.
Before 2000 and after 2005 RSS and UAH track each other quite well. It is the period between 2000 and 2005 that they differ radically.
Just around the time (2003) that Roy has said they use/include different satellites.
RLH,
Your assumption that UAH must be correct and higher in quality can only be based on your biases and beliefs, not the science.
Again, the error-bar on 10 y trend is larger than the trend, thus 10 y is simply not sufficient to test models of AGW tropospheric warming.
Over a term long enough to do that, > 20y, the analyses differ dramatically.
Therefore researchers in the field cannot use satellite-measured tropospheric warming to reliably test their models. The quality of the data simply isnt good enough.
Now I expect you will double-down as usual.
Nate: You appear not to trust anything that Roy says.
In addition
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2016/trend/plot/uah6/from:2017/trend/plot/uah6/from:2018/trend/plot/uah6/from:2019/trend/plot/uah6/from:2020/trend
shows that 3 out of 5 recent yearly trends are downwards.
And the slope is increasing as we get closer to the present.
“Nate: You appear not to trust anything that Roy says.”
Again RLH, you should be able to understand this.
Science is judged on the EVIDENCE, not the person.
As I said elsewhere, I know that I am not expert enough to judge whether RSS group or UAH group has done the troposphere T analysis better.
As I’m sure many climate scientists who are not specialists in remote sensing are not able to judge either.
Do you feel qualified to make that judgement?
Then we are left with a rather huge systematic uncertainty in the troposphere T trends, at the moment.
As compared to the surface data trends, the analysis by a half dozen or more different, independent, groups are all much closer together. There is more of a consensus of the evidence.
As far as the trend fitting, you seem to be as stubbornly digging in your heels as the non-spinner Lunatics.
Ive shown you several times the flip-flopping of trends, and huge error bars on trends of short duration. This is pretty basic.
I have pointed out repeatedly that ENSO is well understood and measurable contributor to short-term variation. It can be treated as noise on top of whatever underlying long-term trend is there, which is of interest for testing climate change models.
Given your previous emphasis on filtering out short-term noise with 15 y LP filters, in order to better ‘see’ the climate change signals, you SHOULD understand this.
Nate: What I was meaning was put much more elegantly by others.
The reality is that any measure of standard error and associated confidence limits is a function of the assumed statistical model. As such it is an assumption-based estimate. In contrast, the monthly and 13-month moving averages are point measures that are a function of what was actually measured. There will be errors in those measurements but no statistical technique can tell you what those errors might be. In fact, all of the statistical measures assume the measurements themselves were made without error. In contrast, the statistical analysis is all about trying to estimate the extent to which the natural and real variability in the system over time as measured is fundamental to the real system or simply due to random chance.
I agree that errors are a function of the assumed model.
Another concept is overfitting, which is what I have been calling ‘fitting noise’.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overfitting
Underfitting is related.
They make the point that Overfitting may produce what looks like a good fit to most wiggles of the data, but will have POOR predictive skill.
How do we know which model is best to use for Global T data?
It is the model that is likely to have the best predictive skill.
The relevance here to your linear fits to short-periods is that these fits will have POOR predictive skill.
We know that because their slopes need to change year after year. They have no predictive skill a year or two later.
Whereas a linear fit over a long enough period does have reasonably good predictive skill for a (not too long) subsequent period.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1970/to:2000/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000/mean:12
Although ENSO is “variability in the system over time as measured is fundamental to the real system”
I think that there is no way to model and predict its behaviour beyond 6 months.
What would you fit it with, a polynomial? Whatever model you choose will have poor predictive skill.
Thus, if your goal is test climate model success over decades, it is best to treat ENSO as short duration noise.
“POOR predictive skill.”
Like an OLS fit over the last decade predicted the drop in temperatures over the last few years.
All straight lines are a bad fit to almost anything.
Well the PDO exhibits this behavior since the 1800s.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/pdo.jpeg
I am not sure a straight line is of much use there.
“Like an OLS fit over the last decade predicted the drop in temperatures over the last few years.”
As explained, but no surprise–point missed–, the drop in temperatures was due to ENSO, which is not predictable beyond 6 months and cyclic. It CAN thus be treated as noise.
“All straight lines are a bad fit to almost anything.’
What would you have used as a replacement? A polynomial to ‘fit’ all the wiggles?
Read about Overfitting.
Whatever you use would have to have better predictive skill than a straight line.
Tell me then, what specifically, would you have used?
“Well the PDO exhibits this behavior since the 1800s.”
So now the short-term noise that you cared so much about ‘fitting’ can be filtered out? Removed?
Ha ha ha ha…
Everything starts from somewhere. Who are you to say this is any different? IF (and I agree it is if) this trend continues until next year, how long does it have to continue before you admit that it happened?
“ENSO, which is not predictable beyond 6 months and cyclic. It CAN thus be treated as noise.”
You do know that ‘random walk’ can be influenced by the smallest of offsets don’t you?
It is the accumulation of ‘noise’ that matters, not the noise itself.
?? Again with: if pigs fly next year, what will you say then??
There are flying pigs?
Are you suggesting that the temps will rise? If so, when?
“It is the accumulation of noise that matters, not the noise itself”
Huh?
Noise is noise. It doesnt ‘accumulate’.
“You do know that random walk can be influenced by the smallest of offsets dont you?”
Why do you think a random walk is appropriate for this system? Evidence?
“There are flying pigs?”
Apparently you think so.
ENSO is a cyclic phenomena with a persistence time of 11 months, and beyond that is unpredictable. After 11 months or so, it is as likely to produce warming or cooling.
You seem to believe it has suddenly changed its stripes.
You believe that if it is producing a cooling trend right now, that it is likely to persist into the future.
IOW you believe that pigs can now fly.
Not pointless speculation. Merely acknowledgement that instruments are not perfect. Dr Roy (like any scientist or engineer) has to make judgement calls about the quality of the measurements. Dr Roy: “… decisions have been made, for example, about what satellite is drifting in its calibration and which isnt. ”
The ‘true uncertainly’ is a combination of random variations and systematic errors. That is a fact of life in science and engineering.
And which satellites to include or not as he said.
Solar activity very low. No strong solar flares and a decrease in UV radiation in the 25th solar cycle.
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/gomemgii.html
Large drop in winter temperatures in the upper stratosphere and temperatures in the southern hemisphere.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JAS_SH_2021.png
https://seaice.uni-bremen.de/data/amsr2/today/extent_s_running_mean_amsr2_previous.png
The rather unusual blocking seen in the lower stratosphere to the north, in my opinion, foreshadows early Arctic air attacks in the mid latitudes.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_JAS_NH_2021.png
It seems to me that few people understand how the stratospheric polar vortex interferes with circulation in the troposphere during the winter season.
“Stratospheric Intrusions are when stratospheric air dynamically decends into the troposphere and may reach the surface, bringing with it high concentrations of ozone which may be harmful to some people. Stratospheric Intrusions are identified by very low tropopause heights, low heights of the 2 potential vorticity unit (PVU) surface, very low relative and specific humidity concentrations, and high concentrations of ozone. Stratospheric Intrusions commonly follow strong cold fronts and can extend across multiple states. In satellite imagery, Stratospheric Intrusions are identified by very low moisture levels in the water vapor channels (6.2, 6.5, and 6.9 micron). Along with the dry air, Stratospheric Intrusions bring high amounts of ozone into the tropospheric column and possibly near the surface. This may be harmful to some people with breathing impairments. Stratospheric Intrusions are more common in the winter/spring months and are more frequent during La Nina periods. Frequent or sustained occurances of Stratospheric Intrusions may decrease the air quality enough to exceed EPA guidelines.’
https://i.ibb.co/D444qH3/zu-sh-1.gif
My (and Entropic man’s) prediction of +0.20 for August looks pretty good. Anybody like to take away our bragging rights?
Well, I *did* make three predictions: 0.17, 0.13, and 0.21 based on three simple statistical calculations. And the average did turn out to be spot on!
(I know this is largely good luck, but I will take at least a little credit. Based on the same techniques, the predictions for next month will be an even more boring 0.17, 0.18, and 0.21.
Maybe I will add one or two slightly more sophisticated statistical models — but I know that all of the ones I envision will give numbers close to 0.21 for next month.)
> the average did turn out to be spot on!
Imagine if it was the median, Tim: you would have been even more spot on!
hahaha
As I said, this was a fair amount of luck. Sort of like predicting 5 heads if you flip a coin 10 times. It is a very ‘safe’ prediction, but it is still unlikely to actually be correct. I made a few ‘safe’ predictions, and they all turned out to be quite good.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2016/trend/plot/uah6/from:2017/trend/plot/uah6/from:2018/trend/plot/uah6/from:2019/trend/plot/uah6/from:2020/trend
3 out of 5 recent yearly trends are downwards.
Sounds similar what to 5 coin flips would give….
And the more recent the trend the steeper the slope.
As they say noise will be noise..
And, like ‘random walk’, noise accumulates into trends.
ENSO is not a random walk. It is cyclic, and returns to equilibrium regularly.
Care to venture for next month?
At this stage I will go with +0.17. But will update it towards the end of the month.
Me too. But I suspect that 0.17c is high as the current trend line of the measurements shows lower.
“current trend line of the measurements shows lower.”
The current 6 month trendline is UP
The current 3 year trendline is DOWN
The current 10 year trendline is UP
The current 42 year trendline is UP
It just depends which trendline you use as to which direction you would predict for next month. Some statistical analysis might be able to tease out just which sort of time frame is best.
If you believe that the globe has a memory longer than one year, up to a decade or more, then you need to adopt the low pass filtering system rather than OLS straight trend lines.
As the next month is more likely to be influenced by the immediately past one (auto-correlation) more recent trends are more likely to produce accurate predictions in the short term.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2016/trend/plot/uah6/from:2017/trend/plot/uah6/from:2018/trend/plot/uah6/from:2019/trend/plot/uah6/from:2020/trend
3 out of 5 recent yearly trends are downwards.
As noted, RLH has taken his eye off the climate-change ball and is now chasing noisy squirrels.
As noted elsewhere
“The reality is that any measure of standard error and associated confidence limits is a function of the assumed statistical model. As such it is an assumption-based estimate. In contrast, the monthly and 13-month moving averages are point measures that are a function of what was actually measured. There will be errors in those measurements but no statistical technique can tell you what those errors might be. In fact, all of the statistical measures assume the measurements themselves were made without error. In contrast, the statistical analysis is all about trying to estimate the extent to which the natural and real variability in the system over time as measured is fundamental to the real system or simply due to random chance.”
It is interesting to see how the drop in stratospheric temperature causes the ozone hole to grow rapidly.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_ALL_SH_2020.png
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_plot.png
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
Fueled by warmer-than-normal water in the Gulf of Mexico, Hurricane Ida destroyed homes, uprooted trees and cut off power to more than 1 million residents. It battered Mississippi and the already storm-ravaged state of Louisiana, and officials there say they expect the death toll to increase in the coming days.
Hurricane Ida was just the latest in back-to-back storms that have slammed Louisiana in recent years. But Katharine Hayhoe, chief scientist at the Nature Conservancy and professor at Texas Tech University, said an important distinction is not the frequency of the storms but their severity.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/climate-and-environment/climate-change-is-making-hurricanes-stronger-slower-and-wetter-ida-checked-all-the-boxes-1.5567642
Continuing the increase in Atlantic Cat 4s and 5s.
#4 #4/year #5 #5/y
18511900 13 0.26
19011950 29 0.58 9 0.18
19511975 22 0.88 6 0.24
19762000 24 0.96 7 0.28
20012020 31 1.4 14 0.7
“Major hurricanes” are Category 3, 4 and 5.
You conveniently forgot about category 3.
Scratch your own itch, RG.
Logically, it is possible that CAT 3 numbers go down.
Think about it. What used to be CAT 3 are now moving into the CAT 4 and CAT 5 categories. They go up while CAT 3 numbers go down.
(unless CATs 1 and 2 are stepping up also).
Cat 4 and 5 are the strongest hurricanes. Most of them hit somewhere, if not the US. Lately there have been significantly more of these strongest ones.
Pretty simple.
Feel free to add the middle cat 3s, whatever floats your boat, RG.
No scientific reason to limit to US-48 strikes, which makes the stats much worse.
Nate
Maybe a better resource than wikipedia article.
Here:
http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Realtime/index.php?arch&loc=global
Globally it does not seem much change in hurricanes since 1980. You can go to different basins. The longest record is North Atlantic, it seems to show an increase in major hurricanes. There does seem to be a cyclic behavior to hurricanes. Like one of the known long term ocean cycles like an AMO or other. So you will get increases in frequency then a lowering.
You can look at accumulated cyclone energy and it does not seem to show any significant increase globally.
Check it out and see what you think.
Thanks for that resource!
Check this out:
https://tropical.colostate.edu/forecasting.html
Tell me what you think.
Willard
As I already stated to Nate, the North Atlantic seems to show an increase in major hurricanes but the global frequency does not show this. Apart from one anomalous year (2015) which had almost 40 recorded Major Hurricanes (Cat 3+) the rest of the time series (1980-2020) does not show any meaningful increase in hurricane frequency. It does show a cyclic pattern that your link ascribed to ENSO.
http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Realtime/index.php?arch&loc=global
I don’t think this years forecast (though above average) will add much to the overall pattern of hurricanes.
http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Realtime/index.php?arch&loc=northatlantic
Since the Global Hurricane count is not showing an upward trend but the North Atlantic basin is, then another factor could be at play for this basin other than global warming. Warmer water can intensify hurricanes but a number of other factors are needed. Do you have evidence that the other factors needed have increased because of a warmer climate? It should reflect in global numbers.
Willard or Nate
I will provide links to 4 of the global hurricane metrics and you explain what you see as an upward trend.
Named Storms Global from 1980-2020
http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Realtime/index.php?arch&loc=global
Hurricanes Global from 1980-2020
http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Realtime/index.php?arch&loc=global
Cat 3+ Hurricanes Global from 1980-2020
http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Realtime/index.php?arch&loc=global
Accumulated Cyclone Energy Global from 1980-2020
http://tropical.atmos.colostate.edu/Realtime/index.php?arch&loc=global
Willard or Nate
I guess you will have to create your own graphs of the different metrics. I tried the links and they only go to the global named storms and not the unique graphs. If you take the time to go through the global graphs let me know which you think shows an upward trend. I do not see one, that does not mean one is not there. If you pinpoint one I can then spend time and put the data on an Excel sheet and have it find a trend.
> Apart from one anomalous year (2015) which had almost 40 recorded Major Hurricanes (Cat 3+) the rest of the time series (1980-2020) does not show any meaningful increase in hurricane frequency.
Every single indicator in the 2021 forecast from your own source are above the 1991-2020 average, Norman:
https://tropical.colostate.edu/forecasting.html
In a nutshell, that’s more
– Named Storms
– Named Storm Days
– Hurricanes
– Hurricane Days
– Major Hurricanes
– Major Hurricane Days
– Accumulated Cyclone Energy
As for the overall trends in extreme events, here are the official predictions:
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
That does not mean it’ll increase every single year or that it’ll beat every single year since the 1800’s. But it still means that minimizing what’s coming will cost money.
Detection and attribution questions are secondary to reinsurers.
Willard
Your link was for the prediction of Atlantic Basin hurricanes. Again I pointed out that region seemed to show an increase in hurricane activity.
The link I posted was for GLOBAL! Consider the difference.
The second part of your post deals with Global but it is forecasts. The current evidence I linked to does not show such increases on any of the metrics in 40 years of global warming.
https://www.counton2.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/7/2021/06/1987_yearly_temperature_anomalies_from_1880_to_2019-1.jpeg
The graph shows the Earth surface had warmed 1 C from 1980 to 2020 but the global hurricane metrics did not reflect change.
Norman,
You are right that different metrics show different things.
Kerry Emmanuel at MIT, has done thorough analysis, and detected strengthening trends, as have others.
https://www.pnas.org/content/117/24/13194
Clearly warmer water over depth is both predicted and happening with GW, as well as more atmospheric water vapor.
With Ida, we saw a rapid intensification (RI) when the storm went over water that was anomalously warm over depth. This RI apparently is a recent phenomenon.
Other factors besides warmer waters are important, and seem cyclic, but not predicted, AFAIK, to trend in a cancelling way to warming effects.
“In order for rapid intensification to occur, several conditions must be in place. Water temperatures must be extremely warm (near or above 30 C, 86 F), and water of this temperature must be sufficiently deep such that waves do not churn deeper cooler waters up to the surface. Wind shear must be low; when wind shear is high, the convection and circulation in the cyclone will be disrupted.[2] Dry air can also limit the strengthening of tropical cyclones.[3]”
Wiki
“Your link was for the prediction of Atlantic Basin hurricanes. Again I pointed out that region seemed to show an increase in hurricane activity.”
I wonder if La Nina had anything to do with that.
Norman,
My own guess is that if you have an itch, you scratch it.
You can always do like our Hall Monitor and Just Ask Questions and see how it goes.
My analysis shows that Willard is an idiot.
Willard the Dullard:
The trend of US land falling major hurricanes,
from 1900 through 2020, is DOWN.
A quote might be nice, RG.
Here’s what it looks like:
Op. Cit.
willard…”Hurricanes — also called tropical cyclones or typhoons outside North America — are being made more intense by the warming ocean, which studies have shown has absorbed approximately 90% of the planet’s excess heat trapped by human-produced greenhouse gas emissions”.
***
Last I heard, the excess heat in the ocean propaganda came from Trenberth after he lamented that global warming had stopped. He suggested the ‘missing heat’?? was being hidden in the oceans.
Heat, being related to atoms/molecules, cannot be trapped by atoms/molecules, especially molecules making up 0.04% of the atmosphere. Glass, as a solid structure created from atoms, can block heat, but no gas can trap it, hence your study is pseudo-science.
> Last I heard
Easy for you to say, Gordo: you’re not listening!
Willard the Dullard
You remain clueless, as usual.
The temperature differential between the tropics and the Arctic is the best indicator of the quantity of bad storms in the Northern Hemisphere.
That differential has declined since the 1970s.
And that change would be a good explanation for why severe storms, that affected the US, have declined, including the longest period, in years, with no major (Cat. 3+) hurricane making US land fall (2005 to 2017)
The US /= The Northern Hemisphere
There appears to be an increase in storm severity across the Atlantic basin.
You can make this statistic go away by ignoring most of the storms in the Atlantic basin and only look at those that make landfall in the US.
This was Roy’s trick for years. You’ve learned it well, grasshopper.
Reply to Barry (there was no reply button on his comment)
US land falling hurricanes are the ONLY hurricanes likely to have accurate data before the use of weather satellites in the 1970s.
A total count of hurricanes will miss many hurricanes that did not make US land fall,
There will be inaccurate data before the 1970s.
The use of satellites significantly increased detection of non land falling hurricanes, creating an uptrend of hurricane counts after the 1960s from that better detection.
Total hurricanes are perfect if you prefer inaccurate data to support a false narrative. US land falling hurricanes are much more accurate.
In addition to hurricanes, strong tornadoes (F3+) in the US have been in a down trend since 1954.
These downtrends of violent weather events were are expected from the declining temperature differential between the Arctic and the tropics, since the 1970s.
Remember that the Arctic had more global warming than any other are of our planet, while the tropics had much less warming, resulting in a smaller temperature differential.
[RICHARD] There will be inaccurate data before the 1970s.
[ALSO RICHARD] US droughts and heat waves peaked in the 1930s.
Troglodytes say the darnedest things.
Richard,
(there’s a limit to how many sub-replies this site allows, and we reached it, hence no reply buttons)
If you believe the data is not good enough prior to the 1970s, then only use data from the satellite period. My point isn’t changed by that.
http://climatlas.com/tropical/global_running_ace.png
Because there are few Cat3+ storms every year, and the Atlantic basin is a much larger area than the US coast, US landfalling hurricane data is a poor proxy for basin-wide activity of ‘bad storms’. During the satellite period there are plenty of years where there were Cat3+ storms in the Atlantic without a single one hitting the US coast. Yet Roy thought fit to make repeated observations, as if it said something about climate change rather than, say, the variation in storm tracks.
You had stated:
“The temperature differential between the tropics and the Arctic is the best indicator of the quantity of bad storms in the Northern Hemisphere.”
The US /= NH
The majority of Cat3+ hurricanes do not hit the US coast. US landfalling hurricanes are poor proxy data for testing this assertion.
And why limit to the US anyway, when you have landfall data for other countries? This always seemed a peculiarly USer-centric way of approaching the issue.
http://climatlas.com/tropical/global_running_ace.png
says that the NH Cyclone energy is the lowest it’s been for 5 years and about the same as it was in 1972.
Graph also says that the trend is increasing overall in the NH.
So does this graph, where it’s clearer:
http://climatlas.com/tropical/global_annual_ace.png
It’s the trend that matters. If data is highly variable, comparing a few points is absolutely meaningless. I don’t know why you do that. It looks like you want to present a certain narrative, and if the trend doesn’t help you (because you DO use trends when they tell the story you seem to prefer), then you, RLH, pick and choose data points that sell your narrative.
The year to date N Atlantic accumulated cyclone energy is 142 per cent above normal (1981 to 2010 average), and it was also above normal in 2020.
If I wanted to sell a narrative of increasing hurricane energy, those would be handy statistics to pitch to the uninformed. Comparing them to other data points and even the 30-year baseline is absolutely meaningless regarding the overall trend.
“In addition to hurricanes, strong tornadoes (F3+) in the US have been in a down trend since 1954.”
Red herring
Tornadoes are not strongly influenced by ocean temperatures the way hurricanes are.
Concern about after > 1970s satellite obs? Fine. Start in 1970. The result is an increase in strength of Atlantic Hurricanes.
barry says:
September 3, 2021 at 7:18 PM
And why limit to the US anyway, when you have landfall data for other countries? This always seemed a peculiarly USer-centric way of approaching the issue.
Why not look at all tropical cyclones and decide whether there’s a trend or not. Merely Google “ryan maue hurricane graphs” and select images.
Did you notice where my links came from, Steve? Ryan’s was the first place I looked.
barry says:
September 15, 2021 at 8:43 AM
Did you notice where my links came from, Steve? Ryan’s was the first place I looked.
Your right, I didn’t read all 71 of your posts.
Two links are in the 2 posts of mine immediately above your reply. You’d have to have read the first one of the 3 posts I’d made in this fairly short sub thread, and skipped the next 2 to miss it.
Shooting from the hip again?
The above statement summarizes one chart in this article:
https://climaterealism.com/2021/08/fess-up-washington-post-actual-data-doesnt-show-climate-change-made-ida-worse/
Proving a negative existential is notoriously hard, Troglodyte, but if you refuse to see something, anything, well eyeballing a graph drowned in noise is the way to go.
Try this instead:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/30/weather/hurricane-ida-climate-change-factors/index.html
Please RTFR.
Nothing from the UN IPCC can be trusted.
Their purpose in life is to make always wrong predictions of climate doom, and they have been doing so since 1988.
Gullible fools, like you, always believe them !
Did you ever stop to wonder why the UN would talk about the past four decades … when data are available for far more than four decades?
Like most Climate Alarmists, the trick is to pick a low point in the data, in a deliberate effort to show a rising trend. Prior data are then truncated, or not mentioned.
The US has often done that for wildfire acres burned and heatwaves — both very high in the 1930s. So they truncate those 1930s data and start the chart at a low point, perhaps in the 1960s !
Just like the IPCC does.
This trick fools the believers, and the gullible, like you.
Kerry Emanuel at MIT, has done thorough analysis, and detected Hurricane strengthening trends, as have others.
https://www.pnas.org/content/117/24/13194
Your blog source dismisses his appraisal of Hurricane Ida.
“Nothing from the UN IPCC can be trusted.”
“Gullible fools, like you, always believe them”
Let’s see Denialist blog vs. IPCC.
Well, IPCC comprehensively summarizes the published peer-reviewed research, like the paper above, and gives lengthy references.
Political-agenda-driven blogs, like the one you cited, are under no obligation to be truthful, factual, comprehensive, or substantiate their claims with evidence.
Therefore people ought to apply skepticism to what they read there. AT LEAST as much as they do to the IPCC.
Else, they are gullible fools…
willard…”Fueled by warmer-than-normal water in the Gulf of Mexico, Hurricane Ida destroyed homes,…”
***
It’s weather, Willard, late summer weather.
Here’s how Katharine words it, Gordo:
Roy’s Denizens should love this conservative voice of reason.
It has long been known that La Nina causes more and bigger hurricanes in the Atlantic. How far that extends to ‘continuously below the center’ as we are now after a La Nina has not been explored so far.
2. When pinned down, Just Ask Questions;
Willard: 1.
W
Katharine for a quote. That’s reassuring. Talk about being desperate. What next ? Madonna?
FYEO, o-puppy:
http://www.katharinehayhoe.com/
Willard the Dullard
US droughts and heat waves peaked in the 1930s.
I thought you might want to know some facts.
Maybe not.
Droughts tend to involve less water than the extreme events we’re discussing right now, Troglodyte.
As far as “what about” squirrels go, that’s not even a good try.
The immediately past La Nina has no effect on this according to Willard.
I might need to add “puts things in mouths” to your one-trick, pony.
How can 1 trick by 4 or 5 tricks than?
Its the severe weather that indicates cooling. At the end of the Medieval Warm period there were severe storms and floods. Strong frequent hurricanes is an indicator of cooling.
Look at this paper:
https://www.zum.de/whkmla/sp/0708/shin/shin2.html#sf
it might interest you.
I lack idle time to deeply go into it.
I make it 0.1350 to 4 significant figures, but to more digits it’s 0.1349671, which would round to 0.13.
I have doubts about rounding to 2 significant figures whilst at the same time given a month by month update. The trend was rising month by month for some time and then falling month by month, whilst the comments say no change. Then a sudden rise or fall is reported as if there’s just been a big change.
Bellman
Exactly!
Until now, I had linear estimate numbers with at most 4 datdp in the UAH spreadsheet; adding one gives indeed 0.13 when rounded to 2 datdp.
*
” I have doubts about rounding to 2 significant figures whilst at the same time given a month by month update. ”
Exactly again!
You see that in Eben’s comment above:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-827168
You gonna need a bigger data slicer
The bottom line is with all you numbers dicing and misaligned chart making you don’t know anything about what those numbers actually mean or anything about how climate works and can not predict absolutely anything
Eben
All we can discern here is the level of your subcutaneous agressivity.
Manifestly, you did not understand even a bit of what I wrote.
Ever noticed how the ignorant are always aggressive?
bellman…”I make it 0.1350 to 4 significant figures, but to more digits its 0.1349671, which would round to 0.13.”
***
Huh!!! When I went to school 0.1349671 always rounded up to 0.14. 5 rounds up, not down.
Robertson
Here again, you show how ignorant and pretentious you are.
Manifestly, you aren’t even able to look at what Excel or similar do when rounding such numbers… let alone how rounding works anyway.
Bellman is absolutely right, Robertson!
https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/math/roundingnumbers.php
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rounding#Floating-point_rounding
binny…”I make it 0.1350 to 4 significant figures, but to more digits its 0.1349671, which would round to 0.13″.
***
Bellman said, “I make it 0.1350 to 4 significant figures, but to more digits its 0.1349671, which would round to 0.13”.
Sorry, it rounds to 0.14. You don’t need the entire number, all you need is the 9. It rounds the 4 up to 5 and that 5 round 0.135 up to 0.14.
Try that on a spreadsheet and see what it brings. You should NEVER rounds things twice. That has been the source of much contention.
Or put another way …
0.1349671 is 0.0049671 away from 0.13
0.1349671 is 0.0050329 away from 0.14
It is closer to 0.13, so it rounds to 0.13. This isn’t rocket science.
Gordon,
Excel rounds to 0.13
The Engineer Police are knocking again.
Robertson
Here again, you show how ignorant and pretentious you are, and above all, that you are absolutely UNWILLING TO LEARN.
Why don’t you at least START learning, by putting 0.1349671 into
https://www.calculatorsoup.com/calculators/math/roundingnumbers.php
“When I went to school 0.1349671 always rounded up to 0.14. 5 rounds up, not down.”
Nope! No school ever taught that. Heck, there is not even a “5” to be found in that number!
It seems you are thinking something like
0.1349671 rounds to 0.134967
0.134967 rounds to 0.13497
0.13497 rounds to 0.1350
0.1350 rounds to 0.135
0.135 rounds to 0.14
But that is backwards. You look at the most accurate
* 0.135 (exactly) rounds using some rule (Like “round up” or “round even”.)
* anything even *slightly* larger (like 0.13501) rounds up.
* anything even *slightly* smaller (like 0.13499) rounds down.
” It seems you are thinking something like… ”
Exactly.
Robertson never reads anything. He merely ‘thinks’.
At best, he would check the content for the presence of what he wants to discredit – or vice versa.
x.0, x.1, x.2, x.3, x.4 round down
x.5, x.6, x.7, x.8, x.9 round up
Half of each.
close,
but x.0 doesn’t round
the rule I was taught to use
x.0 nothing no rounding
x.1, x.2, x.3, x.4 all round down
x.6, x.7, x.8, x.9 all round up
even.5 round down
odd.5 round up
no bias
x.0xxx, x.1xxx, x.2xxx, x.3xxx, x.4xxx round down
x.5xxx, x.6xxx, x.7xxx, x.8xxx, x.9xxx round up
If you want more precision.
This goes back to adding 0.5 and then truncating which will make 0.5 round up.
RLH,
The rounding rules should not add bias.
Take 100 integers between one and ten
Take the average
Pair them off, and average each pair and round to a single digit.
Now take the average.
Is it higher than the first average?
My rounding rule likely gives the same average.
Yours does not, it adds bias.
Bob: As virtually all computer rounding uses the add 0.5 and then truncating method which will make 0.5 round up you are fighting against them, not me.
Typically this is of the form
float x = 0.5f;
float y = (int)(x + 0.5f);
or similar.
Then virtually all computer rounding adds bias, it is then up to me to eliminate that bias when calculating things.
Which I do.
The round .5 to make the previous integer even was the rule I learned as a chemist.
Go argue with the IEEE 754 standards committee then.
I should add that, in floating point numbers, exactly 0.00…. and 0.50… are statistically very unlikely. You are always cautioned to never compare things to 0 in floating point.
The problem comes in when your instrument only has accuracy to two decimal points. (Go ahead and try to read your thermometer to accuracy of 0.5C).
The 6 decimal points come from averaging thousands of readings.
Its not valid to assume the 6 decimal points number is correct.
“The 6 decimal points come from averaging thousands of readings.”
Only if the errors are randomly distributed in a normal distribution.
Ken,
1) The satellite thermometers (and modern weather station thermometers) are not ‘your backyard thermometer’. They can have precision better than +/- 1 or +/- 0.5.
2) Averaging many measurements can give better precision than the precision of any single measurement. Even if each individual measurements is only good to +/- 1 degree, if you average 100 measurements, the average will be accurate to within ~ 0.1 degrees. See ‘standard error of the mean”.
3) Yes, 6 decimal places is indeed more than can be justified, even with good thermometers and 1000’s of measurements. But since computing power is so cheap, we might as well calculate extra ‘guard digits’ and only do rounding at the end. Start with 0.13497 and round to 0.13; don’t round 0.13497 up to 0.135 and then round *that* up to 0.14.
“Averaging many measurements can give better precision than the precision of any single measurement. Even if each individual measurements is only good to +/- 1 degree, if you average 100 measurements, the average will be accurate to within ~ 0.1 degrees. See standard error of the mean’.”
If, and only if, the errors are randomly distributed in a normal distribution.
“If, and only if, the errors are randomly distributed in a normal distribution.”
1) All sorts of distributions would work — normal, uniform, triangular, binomial …
2) If we are only interested in *changes* then the results are even more robust. I could give 100 badly mis-calibrated thermometers to 100 people and ask them to measure the temperature of a room to the nearest degree. The numbers might vary by a few degrees — maybe between 71F and 78F with an average of 74.4F. If the average was 74.9F an hour later, I could be pretty sure the room really was warmer by about 0.5F, even though individual values were in a range of +/- several degrees! Even though about half the poeple gave exactly the same answer as they did before.
https://xkcd.com/1132/
Yep! XKCD is always fun and informative. Statistics is almost always more complicated and subtle than it might first appear.
“If we are only interested in *changes* then the results are even more robust. I could give 100 badly mis-calibrated thermometers to 100 people and ask them to measure the temperature of a room to the nearest degree.”
If they cluster on the floor in one corner then the result would most certainly not be the true average of the whole room.
And it would still rely on those miss-aligned thermometers errors being normal distributed about a common center. If they were all off by 4 degrees in one direction then what you would have is not the actual temperature either.
And if they all had errors that were range dependent then all chances of getting useable results are out the door.
Got any suggestions as to why USCRN has differences between Tmean and Taverage differ on a continuous but repeatable basis site by site? They don’t. I asked them already, And those thermometers are very accurate indeed.
“If they cluster on the floor in one corner … “
If every thermometer was in one corner, then we could be measuring the temperature of that corner. I’m not saying you can measure one thing and then say you know something else you didn’t measure.
“If they were all off by 4 degrees in one direction then what you would have is not the actual temperature either.”
But I wasn’t talking about actual temperatures: “If we are only interested in *changes* … ” Whether the temperature goes from 70.4 to 70.9, of from 74.4 to 74.9, the change will still be 0.5 degrees.
“And if they all had errors that were range dependent then all chances of getting useable results are out the door.”
Now that *would* be a problem. We have to have at least some confidence in the consistency of the thermometers.
“Got any suggestions as to why USCRN has differences between Tmean and Taverage differ …
I have not studied this particular data set, nor how they did their calculations. So I can’t comment specifically. I can say that since they are apparently reporting two different things calculated two different ways, it is perfectly reasonable that that the answers might be different.
“If every thermometer was in one corner, then we could be measuring the temperature of that corner. Im not saying you can measure one thing and then say you know something else you didnt measure.”
So you agree that Nyquist coverage in space/volume is important.
“I have not studied this particular data set, nor how they did their calculations. So I cant comment specifically. I can say that since they are apparently reporting two different things calculated two different ways, it is perfectly reasonable that that the answers might be different.”
Tmean is the ‘normal’ (Tmax+Tmin)/2. Taverage is the ‘true’ average of the temperatures at 5 min intervals over a day.
The problem is not that they are different, but that the difference is site by site specific.
The range (the difference between min and max) will affect the outcome but that still leaves the constant offset to the figures unexplained.
“So you agree that Nyquist coverage in space/volume is important.”
Certainly.
“The problem is not that they are different, but that the difference is site by site specific.”
This is not surprising. It probably also varies by season.
This all would get very complex to analyze. Much more than we could hash out in a random blog post. You could jump in and try to do a better analysis yourself, or contact the scientists involved to share your ideas. (But I suspect they have thought of all your possible issues already.)
“This is not surprising. It probably also varies by season.”
It does not. Nor by Latitude, Elevation, Relative Humidity and a lot more.
“contact the scientists involved to share your ideas. (But I suspect they have thought of all your possible issues already.)”
I have. And they say they have not considered it at all.
“I have. And they say they have not considered it at all.”
Given that there ARE published papers on the matter, obviously you havent contacted all of them!
“Given that there ARE published papers on the matter, obviously you havent contacted all of them!”
Strange then that the USCRN Program Manager did not refer to them when asked. I would have thought he was the ideal person to know.
Can you provide any actual links? That deal with Taverage and Tmean being in such an odd relationship across USCRN stations.
“It does not [vary by season]. Nor by Latitude, Elevation, Relative Humidity and a lot more.”
Really? That seems like an awfully broad assertion. Any given day, “it” (the relationship between Tmean and Taverage) could be different. Taverage could be above or below Tmean. One month the average of Tmean might be above the average of Taverage and another month it might be below. Are you truly 100% confident there are no patterns that might be seen from summer to winter?
I bet (given access to their data sets) I could find seasonal differences (and probably several of the others you mention).
I use averages of each 5 mins in each day over the whole 20 years or so that they have been running, so any seasonal differences are moot.
You can just use the time field (LST preferably) to do that quite easily.
I have imported all of the USCRN data, Monthly, Daily, Hourly and SubHourly into an SQL database, so doing so is just a matter of writing the right query.
You can also then look for a match on the Daily columns for Tmean and Taverage and their difference and none of those criteria I have listed produce the same order. Not even close.
USCRN data is freely available to all who want it.
I published quite a range of USCRN graphs showing the differences between Tmean and Taverage (and a Tmedian also) on my blog recently
Try this
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/uscrn-combined-carrizozo.jpeg
and a load of previous postings.
“across USCRN stations.”
The two papers I saw were about China, specifically because they has a different daily sampling method than Tmax and Tmin.
This might be one https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/apme/58/10/jamc-d-19-0001.1.xml
Nate: That doesn’t address your assertion that there were papers published about the constant differences between Tmean and Taverage on USCRN sites on a site by site basic does it?
There are none that I have found.
So ‘Given that there ARE published papers on the matter, obviously you haven’t contacted all of them!’ is false.
Nate:
“Overall, the present analysis indicates that the previously applied method to calculate daily and monthly mean temperature using Tmax and Tmin significantly overestimates not only the climatological mean of the national stations and mainland China on a whole, but also the upward trends of surface air temperature at most of the stations and in the country. In particular, because the data of monthly mean temperature as calculated using Tmax and Tmin have been widely used in studies of long-term change in global land and regional average surface air temperature, the biases as revealed in this work should be carefully considered in future studies.”
Not looking good for your favorite Tmean usage is it?
“your assertion that there were papers published about the constant differences between Tmean and Taverage on USCRN”
Uggggh. Just stop making up BS.
“the biases as revealed in this work ”
1. read the whole paper, youve missed some things
2. Find out what other papers have found.
3. Do they agree?
You missed this part
“relative to the standard average temperature of four time-equidistant observations”
This was your comment to my observation about the USCRN data
“‘I have. And they say they have not considered it at all.’
Given that there ARE published papers on the matter, obviously you havent contacted all of them!”
As I was referring to USCRN, then your comment and subsequent follow-up about other series is kinda pointless.
“You missed this part
‘relative to the standard average temperature of four time-equidistant observations'”
You missed the part about it not being about USCRN.
RLH says: ‘… Tmax and Tmin significantly overestimates not only the climatological mean of the national stations and mainland China on a whole, but also the upward trends of surface air temperature at most of the stations and in the country…’
It’s refreshing that you’ve apparently come to embrace linear trends and trend significance tests if only for the moment. Maybe you can help me reconcile how Liu etal is reporting much narrower trend confidence for a limited geographic region than one gets with the global data sets.
OK maybe so.
I thought your issue was with Global Warming, not just US warming.
The US is 1.5% of the Globe.
I thought the Tmax Tmin issue was a global one, and historically the data we have available.
Also USCRN is not GISS, Berkeley or Had, who are the ones doing the analysis of data.
“In particular, because the data of monthly mean temperature as calculated using Tmax and Tmin have been widely used in studies of long-term change in GLOBAL LAND and regional average surface air temperature, the biases as revealed in this work should be carefully considered in future studies.”
USCRN is way more accurate in their measurements than anything that GISS, Berkeley or Had use.
“Its refreshing that youve apparently come to embrace linear trends and trend significance tests if only for the moment.”
I am fighting fire with fire. Doesn’t mean for a minute that I accept that it has significant meaning.
Are you contending that the ‘ends’ of the data are less well known than the middle?
“I thought your issue was with Global Warming”
My issue is with 2 things.
1. I do not accept that the data presented gives the accuracy claimed.
2. I do not accept that the majority of what we see is purely human driven.
“I thought the Tmax Tmin issue was a global one, and historically the data we have available.”
The issue with Tmean is widespread and historic but what I contend is that an uncertainty needs to be added to those figures (+0.6c/-1.5c if USCRN is to be believed).
I see no reason why the US should be different to the rest of the world. They just have in USCRN the most accurate figures.
If Tmaxmin is used historically, we can’t undo that. If the same method is used throughout, then how much does that bias a local trend? Not much. Global? Negligibly.
The folks analyzing the data worry about a bias when something changes in the method of measurement. They try to correct for that. Has that happened?
“If Tmaxmin is used historically, we cant undo that.”
We can acknowledge that using Tmaxmin is inaccurate. At least 20% (or so) of the ‘error’ between the ‘true’ temperature and Tmaxmin can be explained by Latitude (see elsewhere). That could be used to correct the assumed figures and perhaps provide a better insight to the real picture.
Other, more accurate than 20%, characteristics might easily be provided that would effect things even more.
And? An offset is NOT a trend.
“If the same method is used throughout, then how much does that bias a local TREND?”
So tell what offset and in which direction the USCRN sites decide Taverage is different to Tmean. On a site by site basis.
Latitude can be considered to cause 21% of that difference. What causes the rest?
Perhaps we should apply that 21% Latitude ‘error’ to ALL Tmean usage worldwide, both historic and present.
That will mean adjusting both actual values and trends to compensate.
“Considering the larger number of stations in the US and in historical time, we may speculate that the error in the minmax method was at least as large as indicated here, and most probably somewhat larger, since many stations have been shown to be poorly sited (Fall et al, 2011). The tendency in the USCRN dataset to have about equal numbers of underestimates as overestimates is simply accidental, reflecting the particular mix of coastal, noncoastal, Northern and Southern sites. It may be that this applies as well to the larger number of sites in the continental US {as well as the world}, but there is likely to be a bias in one direction or another in different countries, depending on their latitude extent and RH levels.
This error could affect spatial averaging. For example, the Fallbrook CA site with the highest positive DeltaT value of 1.39 C is just 147 miles away from the Yuma site with one of the largest negative values of -0.58. If these two stations were reading the identical true mean temperature, they would appear to disagree by nearly 2 full degrees Celsius using the standard minmax method.”
That was said 9 years ago and the record has nearly doubled since then.
Source??
Is it finding or estimating the size of the effect on TRENDs?
RLH is quoting from this WUWT article, which is actually a well done analysis of some aspects of the average, min/max thing.
RLH didn’t quote the next paragraph which speculates that this probably doesn’t affect long term trends although at the time of publication, there were only a few years of USCRN data. With almost another decade of data, there’s little evidence that it does.
The article doesn’t address anomalies, but the same applies, that is if the shape of the temperature distribution doesn’t change, there’s no significant difference between mean and average anomalies.
Here’s some charts for Fallbrook and Yuma USCRN stations:
uscrnFallbrookAnomalies.png
uscrnYumaAnomalies.png
As was noted, 21% of the ‘error’ can be attributed to Latitude. Should we add that correction in addition to the well known cosine weightings?
Mind you, that still leads 79% to be ascribed to ‘uncertainty’ for all Tmean uasge.
Fallbrook distributions
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uscrn-diffs-fallbrook-5-ne.jpeg
Yuma distributions
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uscrn-diffs-yuma-27-ene.jpeg
And, like Blinny, everybody seems happy to use straight OLS lines for spherical geometry (i.e. Latitude). Not sure why.
What you are saying is that 0.135 rounds up and 0.134 rounds down which I agree with.
The 2sigma statistical error is 0.05 so…0.135 means somewhere from 0.085 to 0.185
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
And as Roy noted, the full error is likely greater.
You mean like this?
https://imgur.com/pqm8RKA
Not quite like that, RLH.
The statistical uncertainly involves an uncertainly not just in the off-set, but also in the slope. This leads to curved uncertainty bounds, not straight lines like you have.
Over the time period I used the difference is minor I think.
Slope error is not as you show and not minor.
In any case Cowtan has calculated it well.
That depends of it you are trying to find the ‘true temperature’. If you are just after the trend of the actual measurements then what I have shown is quite sufficient.
Infilling missing results to get to the ‘true temperature’ can cause as much distortion as it brings. The actual figure can be quite different to that calculated.
I’ll settle for actual measurements and their trend and leave the guesswork to others.
“actual measurements and their trend” have actual statistical error, whether you understand that or not!
“actual measurements and their trend have actual statistical error, whether you understand that or not!”
Of course they do. What I was suggesting is that such errors are distributed either side of the trend lines and do not accumulate towards the ‘ends’ to produce curves.
That comes from the part where the ‘true temperature’ is then estimated, not from the measurements themselves.
“What I was suggesting is that such errors are distributed either side of the trend lines and do not accumulate towards the ends to produce curves.”
IDK what you are trying to say, but the error on slope is larger than you have portrayed it.
Cowtan calculated it correctly. Try his tool on UAH for various start and end points. You will see wildly different trends for 3 or 5 y durations. These are illustrative of the large error on trend that he finds.
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
“That comes from the part where the true temperature is then estimated, not from the measurements themselves.”
IDK what you are getting at here?
“Cowtan calculated it correctly.”
Cowtan uses extrapolation and infilling from the actual measurements to attempt to discover the ‘true temperature’.
In other words, ‘inventing’ data where none is actually measured.
Nate: Are you saying the the ‘ends’ of the data are less well known than the ‘middle’?
As has been noted elsewhere
“The reality is that any measure of standard error and associated confidence limits is a function of the assumed statistical model. As such it is an assumption-based estimate. In contrast, the monthly and 13-month moving averages are point measures that are a function of what was actually measured. There will be errors in those measurements but no statistical technique can tell you what those errors might be. In fact, all of the statistical measures assume the measurements themselves were made without error. In contrast, the statistical analysis is all about trying to estimate the extent to which the natural and real variability in the system over time as measured is fundamental to the real system or simply due to random chance.”
“Cowtan calculated it correctly.”
Yes. Yes he did. Your complaint about ‘infilling’ on one set has no relevance to this!
By now your stats paragraph has been posted 11 times. You don’t think that is enough?
tim…”“When I went to school 0.1349671 always rounded up to 0.14. 5 rounds up, not down.”
Nope! No school ever taught that. Heck, there is not even a “5” to be found in that number! ”
***
Tim, old chap, you are being obtuse. Of course I was referring to changing 0.1349671 to two decimal places. Does that need to be said? That’s what rounding up means.
Someone earlier had inferred that after 0.135, the number was rounded down to 0.13. I was taught that a 5 rounded up, as in 0.135, to 0.14.
Always nice chatting to you, however.
“Of course I was referring to changing 0.1349671 to two decimal places”
… and rounding 0.1349671 to two decimal places is 0.13, not 0.14.
Sure you could “round up” from 0.134 or 0.131 and get 0.14, but that is not what we are talking about here.
0.14 could mean anything from 0.135 to 0.145, but in reality since May 2020 when it went up to 0.14, it has never been more than 0.138. The current trend is only 3 thousandths of a degree per decade less.
In reality I don’t think there’s been any significant change in the overall trend this century, given the large uncertainty.
Bellman
Again, you are correct.
Here is Cowtan’s estimate UAH6.0 LT for 2000-now:
0.157 ± 0.128 °C/decade (2σ)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l1mw0BvVbMgVkltgYATsRX3T_Ua96eGu/view
*
Captain Climate’s claim posted upthread, saying that everybody can compute a trend today: that might be correct for longer series, but for 20 years this does not seem to be the case.
Here is the estimate with SE produced by an Excel-like tool:
0.157 ± 0.016
Hmmmh…
This all highlights one of the many problems with “significant digits” as a way of presenting data. It is MUCH better to indicate the value and the uncertainty explicitly.
If the data is 0.130 +/- 0.005, then write it that way.
If the data is 0.135 +/- 0.005, then write it that way.
If the data is 0.140 +/- 0.005, then write it that way.
If the data is 0.135 +/- 0.02, then write it that way.
If the data is 0.135 +/- 0.001, then write it that way.
Writing “0.14” or “0.13” only *implies* an uncertainty of +/- 0.005, when using an overly simplistic method of error analysis.
All thermometers used for historic temperature analysis should have at least x.x +/- 1.0c then.
I guess that depends. A careful person with a good thermometer 100 or 200 years ago could record a temperature to 0.5 C or even 0.1 C.
But most measurements probably we more like +/- 1 as you suggest.
“But most measurements probably we more like +/- 1 as you suggest.”
The majority tends to win, especially when we consider averages that include them.
When averages of many numbers are included, the uncertainty of the average gets smaller than the uncertainty of the individual numbers. So the “majority” helping to home in on a more certain result.
Again we are back to ‘normal distributions’ and random placements.
If they are all off in some random fashion then the accuracy does not get any better.
For instance, USCRN publish Daily series for their stations with Tmean (traditional) and Taverage (accumulation of 5 second data) being part of that data.
On a site by site basis they are off by a fairly constant amount, one with the other. But it is site by site. Why? No-body can say.
Random but systematic I should say.
For instance at one end we have
https://imgur.com/9YAbPuw
and the other
https://imgur.com/RaIHTP1
Also available at
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/53151_fallbrook_5-ne.jpeg
and
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04140_lewistown_42-wsw.jpeg
Along with a distribution over the years they have been open.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uscrn-diffs-fallbrook-5-ne.jpeg
and
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uscrn-diffs-lewistown-42-wsw.jpeg
I had no idea of how much the Augts anomaly would go down wrt July’s, but in the previous thread I wrote it would, on the base of
https://drive.google.com/file/d/134HW_g8ensDzrWyHgHKWz45fR4UqGb_8/view
5 months displacement wrt ENSO still seem to be a valuable point of view.
2016 was by far a hotter August than 2021, right?
Yeah.
That was due to the strong El Nino WE HAD IN 2015/16 (the third biggest ENSO event since 1979, after 1982/83, 1997/98).
The UAH figures have been trending down since then
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah5/from:2016
You used the wrong data, and the graph stopped late 2017 as a result.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2016
Indeed I did. Still shows a decline for the last few years though.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2016/trend
Not too surprising when selecting your start point as the highest bunch of anomalies in the record.
I guess you know what happens when you start with the second highest year in that record. It was a taking-point for any years.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1998
“No warming since 1998!”
Ah, the god old days.
Any explanation as to why the rate of slope is increasing as we get closer to the present?
Yes, when you are fitting noise, the slope changes year to year. If so, it will have NO predictive value!
Try to use your short trends with the downward slope, let them continue into the future, and they fail within a couple of years.
Thats how you know you are fitting noise.
Your ‘fit’
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2016/trend/plot/uah6
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2016/trend/plot/uah6/from:2016
Matches quite well.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2016/trend/plot/uah6/from:2016
Matches quite well.
“The reality is that any measure of standard error and associated confidence limits is a function of the assumed statistical model. As such it is an assumption-based estimate. In contrast, the monthly and 13-month moving averages are point measures that are a function of what was actually measured. There will be errors in those measurements but no statistical technique can tell you what those errors might be. In fact, all of the statistical measures assume the measurements themselves were made without error. In contrast, the statistical analysis is all about trying to estimate the extent to which the natural and real variability in the system over time as measured is fundamental to the real system or simply due to random chance.”
“Matches quite well”
Nope, dimwit, you did not put it to the test!
You need take a fit line and extend it to predict the next years.
Go back to previous period and try to reliably ‘predict’ what came next.
Given that the short term trend lines flip flop like a fish on the ground, we can infer that they will fail to reliably predict.
See above
“The reality is that any measure of standard error and associated confidence limits is a function of the assumed statistical model. As such it is an assumption-based estimate. In contrast, the monthly and 13-month moving averages are point measures that are a function of what was actually measured. There will be errors in those measurements but no statistical technique can tell you what those errors might be. In fact, all of the statistical measures assume the measurements themselves were made without error. In contrast, the statistical analysis is all about trying to estimate the extent to which the natural and real variability in the system over time as measured is fundamental to the real system or simply due to random chance.”
“Go back to previous period and try to reliably predict what came next.”
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2020/trend/plot/uah6/from:2019/trend/plot/uah6/from:2018/trend
What would you say the next period brings?
I dont what you think that is demonstrating?
If the trend changes year to year, how the hell is it going to be able succeed in to PREDICTING what comes next?
Go back to 2010. Fit a trend line to the next 5 y2010-2015 , Did that do a good job of predicting the 5 y after that, 2015-2020?
Do the same for 2011-2016, did it do any better predicting 2016-2021?
No
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2010/to:2015/trend/plot/uah6/from:2010/plot/uah6/from:2011/to:2016/trend
Because 5 y trends are too short, and are simply fitting noise.
RLH,
“Any explanation as to why the rate of slope is increasing as we get closer to the present?”
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1998/plot/uah6/from:1998/trend/plot/uah6/from:2000/trend/plot/uah6/from:2003/trend/plot/uah6/from:2005/trend/plot/uah6/from:2008/trend/plot/uah6/from:2010/trend/plot/none
I don’t know what you’re talking about. I graphed my best interpretation of your reply.
What I do know is that short-term trends tell you nothing about any underlying trend in global temperature data. You need multidecadal periods, not interannual. This is because of the variability in the data.
“No warming since 1998” is the same refrain as “No warming since 2016.”
An utter cherry pick.
And when we have another year that beats 2016 and the trend from that year is upwards, then people like you will start saying “no warming from 202X.”
Been there, done that. You learned nothing, obvously.
From this sequence
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2018/plot/uah6/from:2018/trend/plot/uah6/from:2019/trend/plot/uah6/from:2020/trend
what is you prediction for next year and why?
“Because 5 y trends are too short, and are simply fitting noise.”
But you insist that 15 year low pass filters are of no use.
Nate: Got any reasons why Tmean is so inaccurate when compared to Taverage for daily temperatures? And why the difference is related to Latitude (21% or better).
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/latitude.jpg
There’s no way yet to predict weather that far out. I thought you were interested in climate.
“But you insist that 15 year low pass filters are of no use.”
Nope never did.
I simply pointed out that your use of them REMOVES the short term noise that you are overly focused on now.
Its a contradiction.
“Nate: Got any reasons why Tmean…”
When cornered, change the subject! And ask a question!
That is not the subject of this thread.
The subject is why do you keep insisting that fitting linear trends to short-term noise is valuable for predicting the future, when it clearly, demonstrably, is not?
Fitting linear trends to > 20y does seem to have predictive value.
Looking forward to thoughts and comparison between UAH global and the new IPCC report out.
Ok, I understand now… just the statistical error of the regression slope.
Roy W Spencer
Exactement, Monsieur Spencer!
Merci d’avance – for all of your readers who cannot get the information themselves: -)
And as Bellman pointed out, 3 digits after the decimal point would be a big advantage.
Rgds
J.-P. D.
0.17c to 0.1c and 0.25c.
I call that a ‘split the difference’.
https://imgur.com/NAbRRnH
August was hotter in 2016 than on this year’s, right? Unlinke July.
2020 08 0.30
…
2021 08 0.17
but we’re warming I tell you.
but the 0.17 and 0.30 is the difference to the month before right? I is not the actual temperature of the globe (sorry – learning here).
These are global anomalies.
That is, the difference between each month and the sum of the same months in a reference period of 30-years (1991-2020) averaged.
Ricardo
” but the 0.17 and 0.30 is the difference to the month before right? ”
No.
All the UAH numbers you see in the thread are anomalies, i.e. departures from the mean of the current reference period (since Jan 2021: 1991-2020), out of which seasonal dependencies (‘the annual cycle’) have been removed.
The mean absolute temperature computed by UAH for the lower troposphere is about -9 degree C.
binny…”The mean absolute temperature computed by UAH for the lower troposphere is about -9 degree C”.
***
Another Binny lie. You did not mention the altitude at which the -9C applies.
Robertson
Thanks for showing us all how dumb, brazen and ignorant you are.
You, calling me liar? That is, from a person lying every day on this blog, the very best joke.
If you would pay attention to what happens instead of endlessly writing what you ‘think’ (quotation marks necessary here), then you would know this:
UAH LT global average annual cycle
Mon. Kelvin
JAN 263.037
FEB 263.108
MAR 263.299
APR 263.721
MAY 264.324
JUN 264.966
JUL 265.288
AUG 265.108
SEP 264.471
OCT 263.786
NOV 263.273
DEC 263.072
to be found in
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/03/uah-v6-lt-global-temperatures-with-annual-cycle/
That was the climatology for 1981-2010. Average absolute temperature was near 264 K, i.e. around -9.20 C.
Now, wrt 1991-2020, the Celsius average is a bit higher, -9.05 C.
The average altitude of the measurements you could compute yourself – if you were able to do that; but you Ignoramus of course aren’t.
It is around 4 km.
Why do you never learn anything, Robertson?
“It is around 4 km.”
i.e. Above the turbulent boundary layer that most of the ground based thermometers sit in.
No wonder they produce slightly different figures.
> we’re warming I tell you.
You got that one right.
Sure idiot, 0.17c is warmer than 0.30c for certain. Not.
The predicate is “warming,” dummy.
The indicator is an anomaly.
An anomaly is an anomaly. Next you will be saying they don’t represent anything.
According to you an anomaly of 0.30c is colder than one of 0.17c.
https://imgur.com/xj5Dg6P
“but were warming I tell you.”
RLH continues to hyperventilate over month to month noise.
Nate continues to ignore any downward trend. No matter if it is years long.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah5/from:2016
Or
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2016
Nate: Do you disagree with the OLC trend line?
https://imgur.com/xj5Dg6P
Every OLC trend line has statistical error, which seems to not be your cup of tea.
“Nate continues to ignore any downward trend. No matter if it is years long.”
Here are example trends since 2016, 17, 18 and the whole record.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2018/trend/plot/uah6/from:2016/trend/plot/uah6/from:2017/trend/plot/uah6
If your short-term trend line flops around like a fish out of water, just by changing the start by 1 year, then it should be obvious that it has no significance to long term climate change.
Downwards trends have to start somewhere. Are you saying that this downwards trend will vanish before mid next year?
“Every OLC trend line has statistical error”
There are 2 errors involved. 1 is the error in the measurements. The other is the measurements to the ‘true temperature’.
“Are you saying that this downwards trend will vanish before mid next year?”
I cannot predict ENSO reversal dates. You?
But as I showed you before, the average persistence-time for NINO 3.4 is ~ 11 months. Unless you think that behavior has fundamentally changed, we can expect it to reverse pretty soon.
By pretty soon I assume you mean next year as most forecast seem to indicate that.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/NMME/current/images/nino34.rescaling.ENSMEAN.png
Or for the full set
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/NMME/current/images/nino34.rescaling.NMME.png
An thus, whenever it does reverse, global T will respond in kind..
Your claim was “we can expect it to reverse pretty soon”. Are you now saying that next year (1/3 of the year away) is pretty soon?
With the August anomaly, we now have in UAH 6.0 LT eight consecutive anomalies in 2021 which are lower than those for the same months in 2020.
Here is a list of years for which the same holds:
name| year
—-+—–
uah | 1982
uah | 1984
uah | 1989
uah | 1992
uah | 1999
uah | 2008
uah | 2011
uah | 2017
*
Nothing really unusual, as it seems.
I anticipate the somewhat stubborn reply, but that doesn’t matter much. The reply won’t erase the list :- )
Nor this graph
https://imgur.com/xj5Dg6P
With an uncertainty added to the trend line
https://imgur.com/pqm8RKA
binny…”Here is a list of years for which the same holds:”
***
Then you are supporting the claim by RLH that it is cooling in 2021.
I can tell you one thing, the summer in Vancouver, Canada came in with a bang and is exiting with a whimper. Night temps are below 10C and any evidence of heat waves is long gone.
Robertson
” Then you are supporting the claim by RLH that it is cooling in 2021. ”
Thanks for showing us all how dumb, brazen and ignorant you are.
Exactly the contrary is the case, Robertson. But you lack the experience necessary to understand.
You simply write, without thinking even a bit.
Radiant energy absorbed by ghg other than water vapor is redirected to WV molecules via thermalization. The WV molecules, because of 1200 to one gradient, surface to tropopause, radiate much of it to space. End result is the only ghg that has a significant effect on climate is WV. WV trend, measured and reported by NASA/RSS at http://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_202101.time_series.txt has been increasing about 49% faster than calculated in Global Climate Models and can explain all of human contribution to warming. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338805648_Water_vapor_vs_CO2_for_planet_warming_14
dan…”Radiant energy absorbed by ghg other than water vapor is redirected to WV molecules via thermalization”.
***
What are the other atmospheric molecules, making up about 99.6% of the overall atmosphere, doing while all this is going on…spinning their wheels? Those molecules are part of the total gas and the Ideal Gas Law cannot be put away while people focus on radiation alone.
Most heat on the planet is distributed by oceans and the atmosphere from the Tropics. The transport medium in the atmosphere is nitrogen and oxygen, with CO2 barely transporting any. Along the way, as the hotter gases and water from Tropics mingles with cooler water and air in higher latitudes, both north and south, heat is dissipated naturally. Heat is dissipated naturally in the atmosphere as heated air rises.
Why are you not accounting for natural heat dissipation and the solar energy required to maintain the oceans and the atmosphere at their current elevated levels?
I’m trying to say it’s a lot more complicated than just WV and CO2.
GR,
You should understand this stuff better than you are indicating. Did you not understand what “ghg other than water vapor” means? It means ALL ghg other than WV. All gasses in the atmosphere, mostly oxygen, nitrogen and argon, are constantly warmed by gaseous conduction with ghg molecules that warmed because they have absorbed radiation energy and constantly cooled by gaseous conduction with ghg molecules that cooled because they have emitted radiation. Gaseous conduction is how energy moves wrt wave number. Thermalization is ghg absorbing radiation and sharing the energy with surrounding molecules.
I am not sure what you mean by ‘dissipated’. I presume you mean by convection rather than violation of the first law. Energy leaves the surface mostly by evaporation of water. A net energy balance that I did patterned after Kiehl &Trenberth’s is at http://consensusmistakes.blogspot.com . It shows about 2/3 is from evaporation. As to transport medium in the atmosphere, well, yes the air moves around by advection but a lot of the energy is released as latent heat when the WV condenses.
The only way that energy can leave the planet is by radiation. I consider stuff only from the standpoint of global averages which is appropriate in assessing global warming. I do not address how the energy moves around the planet. I do get the change in average global temperature which intrinsically accounts for “natural heat dissipation and the solar energy” and is comparable to reported values and output from GCMs.
The increase in WV, mostly (about 90%) from increasing irrigation can account for all of the climate change attributable to human activity. The measured WV increase trend is about 49% steeper than calculated in GCMs.
willard…”Heres how Katharine words it, Gordo:
Weve always had hurricanes, weve always had heat waves, weve always had floods and droughts, but what climate change is doing is loading the weather dice against us, ”
***
Do you always fall for propaganda? Climate is not a driver, its a result defined by humans. Some claim climate is the average of weather over 30 years. Some, like Tony Heller, have claimed there is no precise definition for climate.
When someone claims climate change is loading weather, that person is an alarmist extraordinaire.
Here is an actual map of how hardiness zones have changed from 1990 to 2006.
Tony Heller is as usual, full of it.
Hardiness zones are the de facto definition of climate.
https://www.arborday.org/media/mapchanges.cfm
But how much of that’s ‘natural’ and how much is ‘CO2’?
All of it and then some, the natural part is the cooling part, which is overwhelmed by the CO2 and anthropogenic parts.
Says you. How is it that part of the map shows cooling instead of warming? Is CO2 not able to get there?
See under the Differences tab.
A very small part of the map shows cooling.
Didn’t your strawman of CO2 must be heating everywhere get busted already.
A very small part of THAT map shows cooling.
Nothing says that this hasn’t all happened before.
Wait a second,
You have evidence this has happened before?
Can you prove you have stopped beating your wife?
RLH says: Says you.
Actually, it’s according to the most prominent coherent explanation of the phenomena. “bobdroege”, to my knowledge, hasn’t done attribution work, he just agrees with virtually everyone who has done so.
How is it that part of the map shows cooling instead of warming? Is CO2 not able to get there?
The map shows “hardiness zones”, not temperature. Hardiness zones are largely defined by the low temperature extremes not the average temperature.
The blue zones on the map are largely arid regions at elevation that are becoming more arid. This has the effect of increased probability of lower overnight temperature anomalies even as the average temperature anomaly is increasing.
Mark B: You fail to address the most important part of the observation. Nothing shown says that this has not all happened before. Perhaps many times.
RLH,
Wait just a second,
“Can you prove you have stopped beating your wife?”
Well no I can’t but your claim was something else
“Nothing says that this hasnt all happened before.”
You are claiming that is has happened before.
Again, where is your evidence?
Where’s your evidence it hasn’t?
RLH,
Ah, I see we are playing games.
I don’t have evidence it hasn’t because I provided evidence that it has.
Teh Goddard is not worth my time, Gordo.
Get new material.
1.
Dear Experts,
please, may I ask a silly question (I am only a layman, a dilettant): What would be the importance of the UAH data? Why would be UAH relevant for the climate research?
Thank for your answer (help) in advance. Any link to an article/study with explanation would be also highly wellcome.
hari…”What would be the importance of the UAH data? Why would be UAH relevant for the climate research?”
***
Why am I sensing a set up?
UAH data comes from satellites with telemetry capable of covering 95% of the Earth’s surface. The telemetry technology is based on well-established science related to the temperature of oxygen and the radiation frequencies it gives off at certain temperatures at certain altiudes.
Surface stations cover only the land surfaces, which account for no more than about 30% of the surface area. Surface-based ocean temperatures are garnered from different sources and the oceans are terribly under-represented. That is not a problem with UAH data/technology. That fact alone likely explains why UAH data sets read lower than surface data sets.
The relevance to climate research is obvious. The UAH data is far more accurate than surface data and is not showing the catastrophic warming predicted by alarmists who gather surface data.
Many THX you and all others answering my silly question.
The first thermometer was invented around 1650.
Any thermometer records that exist were started since that invention.
The longest thermometer record that I am aware of is the Central England Temperature (CET).
Most of the temperature records are from USA and Europe. Most of the records only go back to 1850.
The thermometer records are all we have to determine if the global temperature is changing (warmer or colder). As you might understand the records are by no means indicative of the global temperature.
Satellites have the advantage of providing global coverage. Too, the theory says that the clearest signal of global warming or cooling is going to be found in the lower troposphere.
UAH and RSS are the only satellite data sets that provide global temperature anomaly data. The only thing that comes close is Radiosonde balloon data.
UAH matches the balloon data more closely than does RSS.
UAH data is of prime importance in determining if and by how much global temperatures are changing.
You can find all sorts of Youtube video featuring John Christy and Roy Spencer explaining their work on UAH data.
> You can find all sorts of Youtube video featuring John Christy and Roy Spencer explaining their work on UAH data.
You can also find a guy who studied John & Roy’s products right here at Roy’s:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atot/34/1/jtech-d-16-0121.1.xml
You can even ask him questions!
Before 2000 and after 2005 RSS and UAH agree quite well. It is the difficult period around 2003 that causes much of their differences. Caused by RSS using a satellite that UAH discarded.
This has all been covered before.
Where’s the Auditor when we need him?
Being an idiot like Willard?
When will you audit why did the UAH discard the satellite, dummy?
So you don’t accept what Roy said on the matter?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/04/uah-rss-noaa-uw-which-satellite-dataset-should-we-believe/
“Despite the most obvious explanation that the NOAA-14 MSU was no longer usable, RSS, NOAA, and UW continue to use all of the NOAA-14 data through its entire lifetime and treat it as just as accurate as NOAA-15 AMSU data. Since NOAA-14 was warming significantly relative to NOAA-15, this puts a stronger warming trend into their satellite datasets, raising the temperature of all subsequent satellites measurements after about 2000.”
“the UAH v6 results are preliminary and a fifth revision has now been released as v6beta5 (v6b5) (Spencer 2016).”
So for the last 5 years you have decided that you know best and that Roy doesn’t have a clue about what he says.
Even though the article I pointed you to is in 2019, 3 years later.
https://science.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Christy%20Testimony_1.pdf?1
Funny that they mention MMH.
29 Mar 2017. Getting closer to 2019 but still not quite there yet.
Baby steps:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/aosc/testimonials/ChristyJR_Written_160202.pdf
2 Feb 2016. Not good enough.
Baby steps:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/aosc/testimonials/ChristyJR_Written_151208_app.pdf
Willard: 1.
Baby steps:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/aosc/testimonials/ChristyJR_Written_151208_app.pdf
Vintage 2015-12-08.
Contrarians have a tiny bench.
More baby steps:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/aosc/docs/ChristyJR_SenateEPW_120801.pdf
Vintage 2012-08-01.
Willard: More 1.
Baby steps:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZzYAAB0nkU
Vintage 2011-03-31.
Tiny tiny tiny bench.
Still at 1. Idiot.
“UAH and RSS are the only satellite data sets that provide global temperature anomaly data.”
AIRs does too. But tis record is still quite short.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/airs7.jpeg
Ken
I’ll answer a bit more about this post later on.
1. You forgot to mention NOAA’s STAR time series (close to UAH 6.0, but observing TMT and not TLT, he he):
ftp://ftp.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/pub/smcd/emb/mscat/data/MSU_AMSU_v3.0/Monthly_Atmospheric_Layer_Mean_Temperature/Global_Mean_Anomaly_Time_Series/
*
When you speak about balloon data, you ignore that they mean a very small, restricted subset of the worldwide IGRA network (over 1500 units), namely the RATPAC subset, consisting of 85 (EIGHTY FIVE) units:
https://tinyurl.com/ebbu63sz – thanks, tinyURL!
RATPAC is highly homogenized using techniques (RICH, RAOBCORE) developed over a decade ago at the Vienna University by Leopold Haimberger and team.
Their work was strongly influenced by satellite data, he he.
NOAAs STAR time series tracks RSS not UAH really.
“Diurnal drift effect in TMT was corrected using the scaled RSS model-based diurnal anomaly datasets (Mears et al. 2003, ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/data/diurnal_cycle/). For MSU, A scaling factor of f=0.875 was used to multiply the RSS MSU channel 2 diurnal anomaly dataset to minimize the intersatellite differences
over land for a best merging. For AMSU-A, a scaling factor of f=0.917 was used to multiply the RSS AMSU-A channel 5 diurnal anomaly dataset to minimize the intersatellite differences over land for a best merging.”
Another issue regarding the comparisons of the UAH data with the balloon records results from the fact that the UAH data is an average over a wide range of altitude, whereas the balloon data is taken at discrete points in pressure level. To compare these two data types, the balloon data must be processed with a model to simulate the “bulk” emissions as measured from orbit.
For the UAH, the ever favorite LT product is created from three separate channels of data, the process uses a model based algorithm to combine those three data sets. The resulting equation for the LT is applied for all latitudes and seasons, which is dubious, IMHO, given the considerable changes in the atmosphere between seasons at extra tropical latitudes. The one-size-fits-all equation may be based on another model of temperate atmospheric conditions, the US Standard Atmosphere, though Roy and John haven’t made that clear in their writings. If the UAH LT is “tuned” for the mid-latitudes, the result may not accurately represent tropical or polar trends. Worse, it’s well known that the high altitudes over the Antarctic result in a strong influence on the MT and especially the LT, but this problem is ignored by UAH.
To my mind, there’s considerable uncertainty regarding the satellite data. I challenge anyone to provide a convincing analysis to favor one satellite record over the other three.
That all depends if you just treat the series as being consistent with themselves or if you are trying to determine the ‘true temperature’ instead.
“To my mind, there’s considerable uncertainty regarding the satellite data. I challenge anyone to provide a convincing analysis to favor one satellite record over the other three.”
Habibullo Abdussamatov is a wise man with regards to the climate. He knows that CO2 is a bit player. The Russians don’t have the same political interference. Their climate model is projecting the lowest warming and closely matches UAH.
UAH also matches Radiosonde more closely than the others.
So we have two analysis that favor UAH over other data sets.
Ken
” UAH also matches Radiosonde more closely than the others. ”
Why do you tell that again?
This NOT TRUE.
UAH matches ONLY those radiosondes whose data was homogenized to better fit to… satellite data.
But even that isn’t enough.
Look at this graph I made out of RATPAC-B at 700 hPa (the atmospheric pressure closest to UAH), RSS 4.0 LT and UAH 6.0 LT:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zR6wh8k4vZWYVpkwbnJD7fh4aF5sY_Co/view
You can clearly see that UAH shows, wrt RATPAC-B and RSS4.0, a downdrift like in many similar comparisons.
See the paper. It says Radiosonde and UAH are close.
UPDATE ON MICROWAVE-BASED ATMOSPHERIC TEMPERATURES FROM UAH
John R. Christy, Roy W. Spencer and Daniel Braswell
University of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, Alabama USA
Ken, Your paper appears to be from a conference in 2004. I don’t find evidence that it was published or peer reviewed. That period was still version 5.x, not the present version 6. The data mentioned ended with 2001, so the AMSU data had not been added. The last version 5.6 indicated greater warming than the present 6.0.
Do tell us, which version was more accurate and why do you think so.
Well this
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/
is what Roy published about v6.0 when it was released.
Do you have any specific questions about it that were not addressed at that time?
Here could be one:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/#comment-190723
Was the code for UAHv6 ever published?
You can read about it at https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Version-61.pdf
Willard: April 30, 2015 at 4:12 PM
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/APJAS-2016-UAH-Version-6-Global-Satellite-Temperature-Products-for-blog-post.pdf
Willard: 1.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13143-017-0010-y
“UAH Version 6 global satellite temperature products: Methodology and results”
Published: 07 March 2017
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314265190_UAH_Version_6_global_satellite_temperature_products_Methodology_and_results
“UAH Version 6 global satellite temperature products: Methodology and results”
Ken
You really don’t know much about those radiosondes which were said ‘fitting well to satellites’.
I perfectly recall a paper by Christy and al. dated 2006, where they explained to have isolated 31 radiosondes (most of them in the US, and a few ‘US controlled’ outside, on some Pacific islands.
The paper described how the data of these radiosondes was analyzed and subsequently ‘homgenized’ with… satellite data.
I extracted these 31 units out of the IGRA data set (probably in 2015) and their average showed on all 13 atmospheric levels (from 1,000 hPa down to 30 hPa in the lower stratosphere) trends even lower than those of the 85 RATPAC-B station data.
Thus please stop telling me how good UAH and radiosondes ‘fit together’.
I get a big, big laugh.
RLH, I read those papers when they were published. That’s the reason I have repeatedly expressed concerns such as the ones I gave above. As Barry pointed out, there was much left out of their description, which the layman reader (that includes you) would not be aware of.
Here’s another example for you to chew on. How do S & C make the transition from a 1×1 deg grid for the MSU to the final 2.5×2.5 deg array product, a non-integer transformation. And, why didn’t they continue this process with the AMSU data? Better yet, why didn’t they just keep the 1×1 grid array and then use the 1×1 deg grid for the higher resolution AMSU data? One would think that the resulting division of the array into land and ocean areas would have been much more accurate.
Have you asked them?
RLH, I would prefer that they provide answers to my question(s) in public. So far, I’ve had few replies from Roy to my repeated questions posted on this forum. My comment up thread is one such example, posted on the second day after the new monthly data was posted.
Perhaps Roy is repulsed by all the troll poop which appears around here.
RLH,
I’ve read al those documents, thanks. Here is the full paper BTW.
https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1007/s13143-017-0010-y
None of those docs provide the code, nor indicate where it may be found.
You asked,
“Well this
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/04/version-6-0-of-the-uah-temperature-dataset-released-new-lt-trend-0-11-cdecade/
is what Roy published about v6.0 when it was released.
Do you have any specific questions about it that were not addressed at that time?”
Yes. The request for the code was made then and many other times before and since.
This is the same request made of other temperature data set providers, and all their code is online so that other scan test and use it.
Not so for UAH.
“The request for the code was made then and many other times before and since.”
Do you have any founded reason to believe that the treatment they use (which they have described in their methodology) is wrong?
Do you have any actual, real, evidence to support your claim?
RLH asks:
Sure. The early years of the MSU channel 3 data exhibited many days of missing data, which UAH noted in their earlier work. That’s one reason that the RSS’s channel 3 series, aka: TTS, excludes data before 1987. But, the UAH analysis somehow produces a complete series for TP, in spite of the missing data. Of course, the TP series is a major component of the calculation for LT, so any fudging of the TP would also impact the LT series as well.
“The early years of the MSU channel 3 data exhibited many days of missing data, which UAH noted in their earlier work.”
So from that you conclude that the whole of their data is more suspect than RSS. Despite RSS using a plainly out of range satellite around 2000-2005.
RLH wrote:
The RSS V4 data included both NOAA-14 from July 1995 thru
Dec 2004 and NOAA-15 data from and August 1998 thru Dec 2010. Problems with NOAA-14 have been well studied over the years. You might want to read Mears & Wentz (2009a) for an example of the extensive efforts to merge the data sets. They also address the NOAA-9 “warm target” problem, which is another difference between RSS and UAH.
As I have said earlier, before 2000 and after 2005 both RSS and UAH agree with each other quite well.
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/to:2000/offset:0.2/plot/rss/plot/uah6/from:2005/offset:0.45
RLH, Your graph does not provide an explanation for the apparent jump, which could be in either time series. Two can play the graphing game:
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/to:2002/trend/offset:0.266/plot/rss/to:2002/trend/plot/uah6/from:2002/trend/offset:0.37/plot/rss/from:2002/trend
Both periods show RSS with a larger warming trend than UAH.
Both periods show RSS with a slightly larger warming trend than UAH.
I guess the next few years will show who is correct.
RLH,
“Do you have any founded reason to believe that the treatment they use (which they have described in their methodology) is wrong?
Do you have any actual, real, evidence to support your claim?”
What the hell are you talking about?
You asked if there were any unanswered questions regarding the latest major revision to UAH. I replied that they don’t make the code available. Other groups do.
I don’t have the skill to check their work. Consequently, I am unable to say which data have more fidelity to the property being measured. Imagine what I surmise about you when you challenge me to defend a “claim” I never made.
You seem to think that UAH are superior for some reason. It’s patently obvious that you also don’t have the skill to determine the validity of one data set against another. How about adopting a more reasonable and appropriately modest view and simply cease prefer one over another? Would it kill you to operate within your limits? Meanwhile, it just looks like bias from you.
“UAH data is of prime importance in determining if and by how much global temperatures are changing.”
UAH data represent a small period of time — 42 years — in the past — that has no predictive value for the next 42 years …
Just like the temperature trend from 1910 to 1940 did not predict the temperature trend from 1940 to 1976 …
And the temperature trend from 1940 to 1975 did not predict the temperature trend from 1975 through 2020.
In addition, the “pause” (flat trend) from 2003 to mid-2015 did not predict the warming from mid-2015 through 2020.
H,
If that is your best attempt at a “gotcha”, you need to work a little harder.
Climate is the statistics of weather. No need for research, dummy.
Try again. Maybe you could ask if Michael Mann’s IQ is lower than Gavin Schmidt, or not.
What is your opinion? It would be nice if you could provide a link in support.
Idiot!
Mike Flynn,
Metamorphosis Facultative.
tim f…”ALL data has uncertainly! This is not discrediting the data, merely agreeing with Dr. Roy ”
***
Understood, I took university lab classes as well and had to state error margins for recorded data. We called them error margins (+/-) to indicated an acceptable error.
Confidence levels are a different matter altogether. They are normally guestimates used in statistical theory to offer a probability the observations from the data have the stated degree of accuracy.
There is no need for such probability with real data. You don’t measure a length with an error margin of +/- 0.001 metres then claim your measurement is ‘likely’ accurate, with such and such a confidence level. You have already stated it is accurate, not likely accurate.
Confidence levels are employed when there is doubt, such as the stupid claims by GISS and NOAA that 2014 was the hottest year ever. Was it or wasn’t it? If you need to offer a 0.48 (NOAA) or 0.38 (GISS) probability that it was the hottest year then you’re a bs. artist abusing statistics to tell a lie.
I always envy you lab based physicists, with your stable environments and instruments that measure to much greater precision than the variability in what you measure.
You might be able to measure the length of a 100mm steel rod to +/-0.001mm in the lab.
Perhaps it would do you good to mount the same steel rod on the deck of a ship and measure its length every hour during a voyage from Australia to Norway via the Arctic.
Temperature changes alone would make the length a variable. I hope your measuring instrument is durable enough to withstand tropical cyclones and blizzards, and can still measure to +/-0.001mm under all field conditions.
Temperature compensation of +/-0.001mm over, say, 30.0c to -30.0c is not trivial.
There are three types of numbers used in global average temperature compilations — a statistic, not a measurement.
Actual measurements (real data)
Adjusted measurements (not real data — an estimate of what the actual measurements would have been if done correctly)
Infilled numbers (not real data — guesses of what the measurements would have been, if there had been any measurements)
Infilling can not be verified by later measurements, so remains the weak link for surface data.
But also a much smaller weak link for satellite data.
Infilling for satellite data is roughly 5%, and for surface data is at least 20% ( please provide a current percentage if you have one — this doesn’t get media coverage ! )
Perhaps even more important than adjustments and infilling is the integrity of the scientists doing the statistical compilations.
My vote is to trust UAH more than the others.
In addition to the potential for distortions of reality by infilling, surface temperatures have insufficient land surface coverage before 1950 and insufficient sea coverage before the use of ARGO floats about 20 years ago.
There is, no doubt the average temperature is warmer than in the cold late 1600s, but the measurement precision has been weak before the 1950s.
Not that measurements of the past climate can be used to predict the future climate, as I discussed in a prior comment.
So whether the correct warming trend since the 1970s was +0.13 degrees per decade, or +0.15 degrees C. per decade, doesn’t matter that much. Although the arguments here seem endless.
The need to acknowledge Nyquist in both time and space should not be ignored, even for areas where you have coverage.
> Nyquist
DRINK!
1.
Whenever the eastern Pacific is cool and La Nina develops the risk of hurricanes in the western Atlantic increases. This is because high pressure remains over the cooler ocean, which directs hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico to the north.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png
https://i.ibb.co/09rjsQ7/cdas-sflux-ssta-epac-1.png
High surface temperatures in the western Atlantic continue to be seen, which could provide energy for hurricane development.
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_sst_atl_1.png
I use
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_30day_large.gif
to get an impression of what is happening at sea,
Arctic is 0,83C above.
I have another source: http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.php
Conflicting information that requires explanation.
This is a signal of a drop in stratospheric temperature above the 65th parallel.
https://i.ibb.co/614BwQn/01mb9065.png
That is normal.
For H2O the latent heat of fusion is 80 times larger than the specific heat of water.
When the Arctic goes above 0C the extra heat goes into melting ice rather than warming air and water.
Summer temperatures above 80N in Summer will not go much above 0C until most of the Arctic ice melts.
In a few months, the temperature anomaly of the troposphere will drop to 0 C. All it takes is for the anomaly in the Arctic to drop.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/model-summary/archive/20210831.nino_summary_4.png
It does take while for sea surface temperatures to reflect in the air above them but essentially yes.
I should point out that one is tropics centered (ENSO) and the other a global figure (UAH).
Eben
Perhaps your God heard your complaint that Henri didn’t hit New York hard enough and gave you Ida?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-58417442
For those interested, I have a comparison of trends for:
GISS Model-E versus ERA5/Raob/MSU here:
https://climateobs.substack.com/p/vertical-profiles-of-climate-change
(See figures 5a,5b,5c,5d,5e)
UAH MSU tends to be broadly consistent with model/reanalysis/raob/RSS in: 1)stratospheric cooling, 2) tropospheric warming, 3)Arctic maxima.
The observations and reanalysis diverge from the model in the ‘hot spot’.
The MSU layer heights are approximations only for comparison of relative trends with height.
For the relatively brief twenty-first century, there is some indication of greater than modeled warming and consistent warming of the hot spot region.
It is possible that the twenty-first century has coincided with increased absorbed solar radiation, the subject of an upcoming post.
“The changes of cloud cover are not particularly well measured. Clouds can have very brief lifetimes of changing morphology and constituency. The discrepancies between the model and reanalysis of cloud cover changes mean that both cannot be accurate, and that we cannot preclude both from being inaccurate. Because cloud cover largely determines the amount of solar energy earth absorbs, we do not know how much of earth energy balance is determined by greenhouse gas forcing in comparison to perhaps natural fluctuation of cloud cover.”
Climate Observer
Thanks, interesting at a first glance, well worth a second, deeper reading.
Lasse
” Conflicting information that requires explanation. ”
There is no real conflict visible so far, because you can’t compare DMI’s data with UAH’s data for several reasons.
1. UAH observes the lower troposphere at an altitude of about 4 km, with a mean global temperature of about 264 K.
2. UAH’s Arctic region is 60N-82.5N
3. These 0.83 C are the difference, for the month August, of 2021 compared with the mean of all August months between 1991 and 2020 as reference period.
4. But DMI shows on this page (the English version is better I think)
https://tinyurl.com/4xe6fhte
that:
– they consider only temperature data measured above 80N;
– their reference period is 1958-2002.
5. DMI’s data is based on reanalysis, is thus indirect data; UAH evaluates brightness measurements directly.
Thus, everything is different.
*
Satellite observation from the spacecrafts used by NOAA don’t allow for daily series like that provided by DMI.
Here is therefore a monthly comparison of a few years with the mean for 1991-2020, using absolute data reconstructed out of UAH anomalies and climatology (August 2021 is not available yet in the grid data):
https://tinyurl.com/cvyan36h
Though differing by much, the series nevertheless show some coherence, especially when we compare 2020/21 with 1979!
I don’t recall the place in polarportal.dk where to find the data source; otherwise I would have superposed it above the UAH series:
https://tinyurl.com/4u6uh4p2
Then we could really compare the two.
*
Anyway, the DMI graph below perfectly shows the situation in the Arctic:
https://tinyurl.com/2k66vv7s
no warming during the summer, very well during the winter.
looks like some profit-taking this month, as investors reap the recent mini-rally… does this bull market have legs? keep an eye on the La Chupacabra index, as well as Atlantic Meridianal gold flows
but look guys, bottom line, despite all the hype to the contrary, this stock is a loser — has never met the gaudy cash flow projections of analysts at HansenGiss or Ipcacack
and they STILL keep saying it’s going to take off any day now, flood the whole market
“oh sure the stock underperforms the S&P 500 by around 1000% percent over its lifetime, but they’re turning the corner now! things are looking up! way up! they’ll be the hottest thing ever!”
be serious guys, no stock that recently traded below its 1988 high is doing well, okay? there are SERIOUS management problems
A new management would indeed be a good idea for we need better contrarians:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL085378
The models are so accurate. Not.
“Because cloud cover largely determines the amount of solar energy earth absorbs, we do not know how much of earth energy balance is determined by greenhouse gas forcing in comparison to perhaps natural fluctuation of cloud cover.”
Even those who support them agree they are running too hot.
Zeke still found that climate models published over the past five decades were skillful in predicting subsequent GMST changes, dummy.
If you want accuracy, check out my One-Trick Pony algorithm.
Weird Wee Willy,
“Zeke still found . . . ”
Are you sure Zeke would be capable of finding his bum – even if he used both hands?
He’s as dim as you – not the brightest bulb in the box. Just another self promoting climate crackpot.
Mike Flynn,
Meek Fencer.
Ask him.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
So you’re not sure that Zeke could find his bum using both hands?
I didn’t think so, dummy.
How about you? Smarter than Zeke, are you? That wouldn’t be hard – well, for any rational person, anyway. I’m not sure about you.
Who do you respect more, Gavin or Zeke? With reasons.
https://www.science.org/news/2021/07/un-climate-panel-confronts-implausibly-hot-forecasts-future-warming
“U.N. climate panel confronts implausibly hot forecasts of future warming”
“In advance of the U.N. report, scientists have scrambled to understand what went wrong and how to turn the models, which in other respects are more powerful and trustworthy than their predecessors, into useful guidance for policymakers. “It’s become clear over the last year or so that we can’t avoid this,” says Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.”
The Only Trick of Roys One-Trick Pony (v.3):
0. Almost suggest something relevant;
1. When challenged, brag;
2. When pinned down, Just Ask Questions;
3. When countered, try to insult
1.
I admit of course that sometimes, I look for texts convincing me, and post them in the hope their contents might convince others.
But… why looking for potentially nebulous texts, when you have true data at hand?
Thus I wonder why persons commenting here think they can write:
” NOAA’s STAR time series tracks RSS not UAH really. ”
just because they found a text matching their subjective impression, instead of first looking at the true data available:
1. UAH 6.0 LT
https://tinyurl.com/2h5w8uy5
2. RSS 4.0 LT
https://tinyurl.com/4ccnz7yh
3. NOAA STAR MT
https://tinyurl.com/4amyaz5e
*
Isn’t it more appropriate to first look at available data, and to compare it using tools whose reliability is known since 40 years?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MkiR2sdBUxUWWkfNZp5LjjOyDN2-q7C_/view
Even if here, eye-balling clearly shows a lot, the linear estimates for 1979-now, in C / decade, explain it best:
UAH TLT: 0.13
NOAA TMT: 0.16
RSS TLT: 0.22
” NOAA’s STAR time series tracks RSS not UAH really. ”
Yeah.
Oh. I forgot to mention a further estimate
UAH TMT: 0.10
Tout le monde a compris, n’est-ce pas?
There own readme in their own words says so.
“Diurnal drift effect in TMT was corrected using the scaled RSS model-based diurnal anomaly datasets (Mears et al. 2003, ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/data/diurnal_cycle/). For MSU, A scaling factor of f=0.875 was used to multiply the RSS MSU channel 2 diurnal anomaly dataset to minimize the intersatellite differences
over land for a best merging. For AMSU-A, a scaling factor of f=0.917 was used to multiply the RSS AMSU-A channel 5 diurnal anomaly dataset to minimize the intersatellite differences over land for a best merging.”
But what do I know. I just take their own words.
Missed one.
There own readme in their own words says so.
Diurnal drift effect in TMT was corrected using the scaled RSS model-based diurnal anomaly datasets (Mears et al. 2003, ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/data/diurnal_cycle/). For MSU, A scaling factor of f=0.875 was used to multiply the RSS MSU channel 2 diurnal anomaly dataset to minimize the intersatellite differences
over land for a best merging. For AMSU-A, a scaling factor of f=0.917 was used to multiply the RSS AMSU-A channel 5 diurnal anomaly dataset to minimize the intersatellite differences over land for a best merging.
But what do I know. I just take their own words.
Ha ha haaah
Until now, no one was able to post a graph showing my bad boy’s crazy manipulation.
Here it is:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1M0NtcZ2NGkBM6MBQkpH1zJABGpClR1D_/view
Now indeed, we see NOAA STAR nearer to RSS than to UAH:
UAH TMT: 0.10
RSS TMT: 0.14
NOAA TMT: 0.16
But this does not change much to the fact that UAH TLT looks more like a TMT series.
Until now, I didn’t care much about AIRS.
Maybe we should add it to the UAH LT / RRS LT pair, in order to see how the three look like?
So you are not interested in what NOAA STAR say about their own figures. I’m sure you know best.
“Maybe we should add it to the UAH LT / RRS LT pair, in order to see how the three look like?”
That would be something useful.
Though why you choose 36 month running means escapes me.
USCRN data is freely available to all who want it.
So is BoM raw data
That was a misplaced reference to someone saying that ‘if only they could get their hands on USCRN data’.
Rightyo then.
barry…”So is BoM raw data…”
***
Come on, Barry, no one is interested in second hand, fudged NOAA data.
barry
I get a big laugh when I see the Ignoramus Robertson one more time boasting about
” … in second hand, fudged NOAA data “.
He is so stupid and ignoŕant that
– he even does not understand that BoM manages its own data, which is subsequently used by NOAA (e.g., in GHCN daily)
and
– suprisingly never speaks about fudged data when that same data is used by e.g. John Christy!
Yes, Gordon once again is totally wrong. Raw data for Australian weather stations are available online via BoM. BoM provides data to NOAA, not the other way around.
The guy is an idiot.
NIWA also publicly provide raw data from stations that have not moved.
https://niwa.co.nz/our-science/climate/information-and-resources/nz-temp-record/temperature-trends-from-raw-data
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
The number of weather, climate and water extremes are increasing and will become more frequent and severe in many parts of the world as a result of climate change, said Mr. Taalas. That means more heatwaves, drought and forest fires such as those we have observed recently in Europe and North America.
More water vapor in the atmosphere has exacerbated extreme rainfall and flooding, and the warming oceans have affected the frequency and extent of the most intense tropical storms, the WMO chief explained.
WMO cited peer-reviewed studies in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, showing that over the period 2015 to 2017, 62 of the 77 events reported, revealed a major human influence at play. Moreover, the probability of heatwaves has been significantly increased due to human activity, according to several studies done since 2015.
The Atlas clarifies that the attribution of drought events to anthropogenic, or human, factors, is not as clear as for heatwaves because of natural variability caused by large oceanic and atmospheric oscillations, such as El Nio climate pattern. However, the 2016-2017 East African drought was strongly influenced by warm sea-surface temperatures in the western Indian Ocean to which human influence contributed
https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/09/1098662
The globe has indeed been cooling lately/ For the last few years or so. Get over it.
We’ll tell you when we’ll have the Doritos conversation, Richard.
Willard: 1.
willard…”The number of weather, climate and water extremes are increasing and will become more frequent and severe in many parts of the world as a result of climate change, said Mr. Taalas”.
***
Propaganda, Willard, propaganda.
The UN has been butt-kissing since the 1960s, trying to create a world government so they can divert tax funds to poorer nations. Noble sentiment, but there’s no need to do it via the perversion of science.
Where is the UN now, as Afghani’s struggle to deal with the oppression of the Taliban? That’s their primary mandate, world peace. Why are they wasting everyone’s time spreading propaganda about a non-existent climate crisis?
The UN was hoodwinked into accepting the catastrophic global warming fraud by UK PM Margaret Thatcher. Besides trying to ruin the working class and sending them into poverty, she needed to sort out the UK coal mining unions. Get it, coal…emissions…global warming. More recently, Theresa May tried to hasten the UK’s decline into poverty and now Boris Hitler is trying to finish off the country by depriving Brits of their democratic freedom.
Thatcher had a degree in chemistry and she pulled the wool over the eyes of the member nations at the UN re the CAGW fraud. They fell for it and they are still trying to peddle the unvalidated climate model meme upon which the IPCC was founded.
Willie isn’t hoodwinked. He is a paid-for propagandist. Ignore his propaganda; I do.
Yet here you are, Troglodyte.
So are you. Idiot.
For “But CAGW” it’s another door, Gordo:
https://climateball.net/but-cagw/
For “But Politics” it’s another still:
https://climateball.net/but-politics/
Since all you throw is tin foil, you can’t help me improve those page.
Sorry.
Willard: 1.
Off topic. Here is youtube discussion about COVID restrictions. Data expert calls out corruption. The discussion is with Max Bernier who is leader People’s Party Canada. There is an election in Canada and Max is running but this discussion is apolitical.
There are a lot of parallels with COVID narrative and Climate Change narrative.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk9kLILgzkU
Literally nothing out of the ordinary is happening.
My city has been in lockdown for 2 months and a worldwide vaccination effort is ongoing in response to the most calamitous pandemic in 100 years.
Dunno what the fuck you’re talking about.
Whacky Wee Willy,
So the drought in Brazil is due to all that extra water vapour in the atmosphere, is it?
Or maybe not?
If illogical stupidity was an Olympic event, the podium would be too small to hold you and the rest of the climate crackpot dummies.
Carry on with your nonsensical links.
Mike Flynn,
Midstream Footnote.
Wrong page.
Woeful Wee Willy,
“Wrong page?”
Have you descended to new depths of obscurantism?
Or just being your usual sloppy self, perhaps.
Mike Flynn,
Mammoth Forger.
Search for “Brazil” on this page.
Wearisome Wee Willy,
No. Search for it yourself, if you want to.
Not my fault if you have the memory of a retarded goldfish. If you deny that Brazil is suffering from drought conditions, you must be a delusional climate crackpot. If you believe that the drought is due to “more water vapour . . .”, good for you!
You maybe an idiot, but at least you are in denial of reality.
Definitely no mention of Brazil. Is he suffering from delusions?
Or……
Caipirinha is Brazil’s national cocktail, made with cachaa (sugarcane hard liquor), sugar, and lime. The drink is prepared by mixing the fruit and the sugar together, then adding the liquor.
Mike Flynn,
Matchbox Flintstone.
Willard: Idiot.
The Only Trick of Roy’s One-Trick Pony (v.3):
0. Almost suggest something relevant;
1. When challenged, brag;
2. When pinned down, Just Ask Questions;
3. When countered, try to insult
1.
tim…”A careful person with a good thermometer 100 or 200 years ago could record a temperature to 0.5 C or even 0.1 C”.
***
Yes, but to make the measurement scientific they would have to include an error margin. They would not supply a confidence level that their reading was accurate.
We have to leave such chicanery to NOAA and GISS, who made absurd claims that 2014 was the hottest year ever based on a probability of 0.48 and 0.38 respectively.
You always repeat the same war stories, uncle Gordo.
Can’t you get new ones?
Don’t sell Max short:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/bernier-quits-cabinet-post-over-security-breach-1.723124
Don’t sell him shorts either.
May 26, 2008
Make that 2008-05-27:
> News of Couillard’s former relationships with two criminal figures spilled into public view on May 7. She said the past three weeks have been “extremely difficult” and that she spent the first three days hunkered down behind drawn blinds.
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2008/05/27/he_destroyed_my_life_girlfriend_says.html
Funny that they were talking of a “girlfriend” back then.
Oh, wow. So recent.
The Only Trick of Roy’s One-Trick Pony (v.3):
0. Almost suggest something relevant;
1. When challenged, brag;
2. When pinned down, Just Ask Questions;
3. When countered, try to insult
Willard: 1.
swenson…”Not my fault if you have the memory of a retarded goldfish…”
***
We must refrain from using politically-incorrect accusations, especially if we work for the CD-C. That would be an intellectually-challenged goldfish.
If you could stop promoting conspiratorial crap, Gordo, that’d be great.
If you could stop being an idiot, that would be even better.
ken…”There are a lot of parallels with COVID narrative and Climate Change narrative.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk9kLILgzkU “.
***
Thanks, Ken, excellent video. There are parallels between covid and climate change, both are based in fear, which, as the speaker in the video claims, distorts a person’s ability to think rationally.
Yep. Both seem to get the conspiracy theorists working overtime..
Don’t sell Max short:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/bernier-quits-cabinet-post-over-security-breach-1.723124
Don’t sell him shorts either.
May 26, 2008
The Only Trick of Roy’s One-Trick Pony (v.3):
0. Almost suggest something relevant;
1. When challenged, brag;
2. When pinned down, Just Ask Questions;
3. When countered, try to insult
Willard: 1.
I am not afraid of COVID or Global Warming. The data doesn’t support fear.
I am very afraid of the extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds that are demanding the erosion of my rights and freedoms because of their irrational fears about COVID and Global Warming.
Its pretty clear that people making decisions about matters such as vaccine passports and carbon taxes have no clue about the science based on the empirical data.
I thought you were afraid of GLOBAL COOLING, Kennui.
You are unlikely to die of GW but to die from Covid is much more likely.
There are numerous stories of those who did not believe in Covid only for them to realize way too late that it was indeed real.
Ken said he was not afraid of COVID.
And that their were irrational fears of COVID.
He did not say COVID does not exist.
Or does not kill anyone.
Your response is weak.
Tell that to the families of those who have already died from Covid.
Odds are less than 1:10000.
I believe COVID is nasty for some people. But most of us won’t die even if we do get infected.
“Positivity rates were highest in teenagers and young adults, but hospital admissions and deaths were highest among the elderly”
Ken
I am watching your video. I think it is the same lies as already proven, by evidence, to be false. They just make assertions in total ignorance. You can believe these type of people. I reject their points.
I did have Covid last year. I was sick for 3 weeks. It is much worse than any other sickness I have ever had.
But that is just my experience with it.
There is other larger information showing how stupid these two jokers are.
https://ourworldindata.org/covid-hospitalizations
You can see hospitalization data showing how incredibly dishonest those jokers are. Please don’t think they are telling you anything but blatant lies.
They say NO EVIDENCE. What total dishonest liars they are.
If you look at my link you can see hospital rates start going up, then masking or lockdowns take place and rates drop. They stop these actions and rates go up. Really basic reality here. There lies cannot change what is real.
Also, you may not care about Covid. That is your choice. But consider the people who are working in the Health Industry. You can ignore the sick. If you or people you care about do not have it, no biggie to you. But that does not help the health care workers, they cannot ignore the reality like your lying bozos.
The Right-Wing liars have to be the worst of human nature. They know they are lying but do it anyway and lots of people end up dying that would not have to. Sick minds I think.
Norman volunteers: “I did have Covid last year. I was sick for 3 weeks.”
Trump had Covid about the same time, and was well in 3 days.
Maybe Norman just likes being sick….
Stay classy, Pup.
Clint R
It has different degrees of effect on people. Trump was given experimental drugs and was very sick.
Individual cases and the impacts on them is only one small part of the larger picture of why this is a major issue.
First it is an infectious disease. The Delta variant is much more infectious than the first strain so more people will get infected if nothing is done to mitigate. If you like reality, as you claim, look at the Hospitalization graphs and the numbers in ICU units. It grows on an exponential scale until some mitigation efforts are taken. The Health Care workers are the ones pleading with Governors to take action to lower the numbers.
Not sure what point you are trying to make. Looks really stupid as is normal for your posts.
“Norman” does not like being sick! That is why I got vaccinated so I don’t have to go through another round. But you most certainly enjoy your stupidity. You seem to enjoy swimming in a pool of stupidity and fishing in the pond to pull our ever more stupid posts. Your never ending stupidity is amazing. This blog with you, Gordon Robertson and Swenson shows how really stupid humans can be. Interesting to see, not good, but interesting.
Norman, your tangled anti-science spills over into your mis-understanding of medical issues. You don’t recognize that politicians and news media have NO understanding of reality.
At least you’ve got butt-sniffers like Dud watching out for you.
Birds of a feather, as they say….
Clint R
I thought videos of this nature were kind of made up for humor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLDvM–1TLc
Your stupid posts make me think people really are stupid.
Your last post was a mindless waste of effort. Just stupid, not purpose, no point. Just stupid content. Endless from you it would seem.
I doubt you could post an intelligent or thoughtful comment.
You have not in hundreds of posts.
The science is that people who have been sick with COVID have better immunity than they will ever get from a vaccine. Once you have natural immunity there is no benefit from taking the vaccine.
That is a point seriously missing from the vaccine passport discussion. Canada sent a citizen back to France where she is a resident because she didn’t have a vaccine passport. She did have proof of naturally acquired immunity.
Its the ‘stupid’ in stories like this that really wind me up.
Ken
Sorry to disagree with you but real scientists and researchers are investigating this situation. They monitor the level of antibodies (for Coronavirus) in the blood.
Having been sick with the virus, a person is protected for a period of time. The researchers are finding out how long that time frame is.
https://www.genengnews.com/news/sars-cov-2-antibodies-persist-for-months-after-infection/
It does not seem to be an endless protection.
Norman, it’s always amazing how you want to pervert reality.
You tried to make this current flu worse than “evah”, by claiming you were sick for 3 weeks. I gave you an example of someone that was only sick 3 days.
So what do you do? You tried to claim it is different for everyone.
Sorry Norman, that ain’t science.
“Maybe Norman just likes being sick.”
Clint is really an overachiever at being an asshole.
Troll Nate impresses us with his incompetence and immaturity.
Nothing we haven’t seen before….
rlh…”Diurnal drift effect in TMT was corrected using the scaled RSS model-based diurnal anomaly datasets (Mears et al. 2003…)
***
If I remember correctly, the error was within the error margin stated by UAH.
That doesn’t alter the fact that they explicitly state RSS in their readme.
rlh…”That doesnt alter the fact that they explicitly state RSS in their readme”.
***
UAH and RSS worked together to solve the problem. That was in the days before RSS sold out to NOAA.
By accident, I looked at the end of a discussion up-thread between Nate and RLH.
From RLH you can – really! – read:
” ‘Cowtan calculated it correctly.’
Cowtan uses extrapolation and infilling from the actual measurements to attempt to discover the ‘true temperature’. ”
One hardly could behave more dishonest.
*
Simply because ‘extrapolation and infilling’ indeed were used by Kevin Cowtan and Robert Way in an analysis of Had-CRUT4.
You clearly can see that in their paper
Coverage bias in the Had-CRUT4 temperatures series and its impact on recent temperature trends (2014)
https://tinyurl.com/4unra7pm
*
But… what does that have to do with the work Kevin Cowtan did when Implementing his trend computer?
https://tinyurl.com/krf5uu7n
Does Genius RLH KNOW that this software is based on interpolation and infilling?
Or is he simply ‘guessing’ about that?
Anyway, this is simply below the belt. Disgusting.
*
let us look at Cowtan’s real work, best seen when comparing (global) trends (i.e., linear estimates), in C/decade, for longer vs. shorter time periods (sorted by decreasing SE).
1. 1980 – now
RSS 4.0 LT: 0.215 ± 0.052
Karl 2015 (global): 0.163 ± 0.048
UAH 6.0 LT: 0.135 ± 0.050
GISS surf: 0.189 ± 0.038
NOAA surf: 0.166 ± 0.037
Had4CWKrig: 0.186 ± 0.035
BEST surf: 0.194 ± 0.031
2. 2000 – now
Karl 2015 (global): 0.141 ±0.164
RSS 4.0 LT: 0.231 ± 0.134
UAH 6.0 LT: 0.157 ± 0.128
NOAA surf: 0.199 ± 0.120
Had4CWKrig: 0.208 ± 0.102
GISS surf: 0.229 ± 0.100
BEST surf: 0.228 ± 0.082
The data sets in the list, completed with infilling were:
– Had4CWKrig
– Karl 2015 (global).
*
We all can see here the difference between
– Cowtan’s trend computation work, taking account of lots of things which matter when ‘trend’ing time series (beginning with autocorrelation)
and
– the rather simple job done by Excel and the like (where trends for 2000-now are similar, but with vanishing SE compared with Cowtan’s).
*
In a previous thread, RLH proudly claimed: ‘I learned statistics’.
Maybe he did.
But in superficially discrediting the work done by others (instead of scientifically contradicting that work), he seems to be much better than in statistics.
Are you going to contest that ‘slope error’ needs to be considered when doing a simple OLS trend on measurement data?
The slope may be between the upper or lower ends of the data, (2 ways) but beyond that nothing is known. Certainly it does not add a ‘curve’ as described.
The ‘ends’ of the data are no less well known than the ‘middle’.
The slope may be between the upper or lower ends of the data plus the uncertainty.
RLH
One more time, you hide what you wrote behind other things.
I guess you would rather like to die than to express an apology to your poorish lie concerning Dr Kevin Cowtan’s work.
By the way, RLH: this guy knows about 1,000,000 time more about statistics than you could ever learn till death.
I note what you say and give it an appropriate weighting.
Alternatively you could suggest that simple straight lines are not a solution and that something else, like low pass filtering, is more appropriate for ‘natural’ data.
Instead of endlessly boasting you pseudo-knowledge about slopes, I propose you to LEARN:
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2013/09/adjusting-temperature-series-stats-for.html
“the best remedy is to instead use, say, annual averages. Little information will be lost, and the autocorrelation will reduce.”
I wonder why I use 12 month gaussian filters (at least) in all my work. Must be by accident.
P.S. No information is ‘lost’ by bandpass pass filtering unless you decide to discard one of the bands. And that is then down to you not the methodology.
So you agree that the ‘ends’ are less certain than the ‘middle’ Interesting.
As others put (better than me)
“The reality is that any measure of standard error and associated confidence limits is a function of the assumed statistical model. As such it is an assumption-based estimate. In contrast, the monthly and 13-month moving averages are point measures that are a function of what was actually measured. There will be errors in those measurements but no statistical technique can tell you what those errors might be. In fact, all of the statistical measures assume the measurements themselves were made without error. In contrast, the statistical analysis is all about trying to estimate the extent to which the natural and real variability in the system over time as measured is fundamental to the real system or simply due to random chance.”
Sorted out how to do daily averages yet and why double rounding is considered so bad?
I have the daily profiles for the USCRN data now. Interested?
WBAN,Name,Latitude,Longitude,Elevation,Mean,Average,Difference
04140,”Montana Department Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Judith River WMA”,46.88,-110.28,5070,4.78,5.47,0.69
53139,Death Valley National Park (Stovepipe Wells Site),36.6,-117.14,84,25.49,26.13,0.64
96404,”FWS, Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge (Seaton Roadhouse site)”,62.73,-141.2,2000,-1.73,-1.17,0.56
04136,”US Fish & Wildlife Service, Turnbull NWR (Headquarters Site)”,47.41,-117.52,2267,7.32,7.85,0.52
53154,”U.S. Army, Yuma Proving Ground (Redbluff Pavement Site)”,32.83,-114.18,620,23.47,23.99,0.52
…
92827,Archbold Biological Station,27.15,-81.36,150,22.9,22.22,-0.68
04237,Olympic National Park (Bishop Field Site),47.51,-123.81,286,10.05,9.38,-0.68
12987,Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR (La Sal Del Rey),26.52,-98.06,64,24.04,23.34,-0.7
92826,Big Cypress National Preserve (Ochopee Headquarters Vista Site),25.89,-81.31,4,24.54,23.56,-0.98
53151,San Diego State Univ`s Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve (Old Mine Road),33.43,-117.19,1140,18.87,17.51,-1.36
The Only Trick of Roy’s One-Trick Pony (v.3):
0. Almost suggest something relevant;
1. When challenged, brag;
2. When pinned down, Just Ask Questions;
3. When countered, try to insult
Willard: 1.
My browser tells me that on August,17 I posted this stuff on this blog:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13fZbOg4aUS1zL-wQagK5R2YvPBCB3Yif/view
I still await
– your version of the graph
and if they don’t differ by more than tiny bits
– your explanation for the spatial dependencies of the two comparisons.
Others have suggested that Latitude was the answer, but they determined that it only explained a small portion of it. But, as always, you know better.
“Figure 5 suggests that the error has a latitude gradient, decreasing from positive to negative as one goes North. Indeed a regression shows a highly significant (p<0.000002) negative coefficient of 0.018 oC per degree of latitude (Table 1, Figure 6). However, other variables clearly affect DeltaT as shown by the adjusted R2 value indicating that latitude explains only 21% of the observed variance.</strong"
My memory tells me that I have posted this before but again, as always, you ignore anything that which does not meet your views.
I have the full 138 currently active stations (I removed those that have closed or are considered experimental) with Latitude, Mean and Average if you wish.
Taken from USCRNs own daily data so not subject to +/- 0.1c rounding error that using the hourly data brings as you do.
You never learn from your errors do you but continue on blindly as though others can show you nothing. Including USCRN.
RLH
OK, you seem to have good reasons not to present a graph like I did. Your decision.
I of course accept what people say about the correlation between latitude and differences between average and mean data.
NO, no and no: I do NOT know better. I look at data, that’s all.
It just appeared a bit strange to me that the inverse correlation existed between average and median data as well.
Here are the sources of the graph, for 228 USCRN stations:
1. Average minus mean aka (TMIN+TMAX)/2
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EAOU5Agp9wfctMbPtp7vEQ2Z9_xrlZBQ/view
2. Average minus median
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YeCrVkvcP2dw6uTl9y-89pdTlwn25BRb/view
Unluckily, we use different station names, what makes the comparison a bit difficult; but the top of your list perfectly matches mine.
Of course, I did not switch to subhourly data. With poor 16 Mbit/sec, it took me quite a while to download the hourly stuff, and that was enough.
*
I still don’t know why you keep so teachy and arrogant with your meaning:
” Taken from USCRNs own daily data so not subject to +/- 0.1c rounding error that using the hourly data brings as you do.
You never learn from your errors do you but continue on blindly as though others can show you nothing. ”
What errors?
Here is, again and again, the graph comparing my daily averaging of USCRN’s hourly data with their own daily data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sbOZ6MfyYa5LllVMdPFNryucNsFiTDS1/view
I did of course not use the rounding for computations; it was just there to draw the tiny difference plot on the graph, oh Noes.
How can you tell us that these ridiculous differences would play any role?
They move from -0.07 till + 0.06 C, with the medians for negative and positive differences being -0.02 and +0.03 C.
A comparison of the two time series using ordinary least squares needs 8 (EIGHT) digits after the decimal point to show differing numbers: 0.25302598 C / year versus 0.25302603!
And you try to discredit what I do on the base of some ‘double rounding’… Wow. Sorry: that’s really poorish.
No idea what’s the matter with you.
*
Finally, you still owe a clear proof for your claim that the median is a better way to describe averages than is the mean.
I searched for many sources and all of them said: “The median is strongly recommended for highly skewed data”.
Like for example the average income.
But when you build, using your control data output for V&V, a temperature distribution for the 24 hours for two stations and the entire average of all stations, you obtain this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TFosZhWOev-Xv4DyHx0j5C3XSOffWizw/view
Nothing skewed to be seen at all.
And anyway, the difference between average, mean and median when looking, for example, at DWD’s Germany data of over 600 stations is simply insignificant.
*
When will you finally present a graph showing, for the average of all USCRN stations, the difference between hourly average, median and mean?
“only 21% of the observed variance.” will give you the line you plot. Doesn’t mean that you are completely right though.
“I searched for many sources and all of them said: The median is strongly recommended for highly skewed data.
Like for example the average income.”
Like all skewed data sets, of which income may be one..
“the entire average of all stations”
You do realize that the error is nearly equally distributed with negative being favored slightly. This means that averaging them all will nearly remove the problem.
Doesn’t make it go away, just hides it so that you don’t have to worry.
Until you can come up with a solid set of reasons, you have ‘proved’ next to nothing. And, no, latitude does not cut it.
“Here is, again and again, the graph comparing my daily averaging of USCRNs hourly data with their own daily data:”
You persist in your errors don’t you. As USCRN and I have explained, the Daily and Hourly rounded data is accumulated from their 5 min periods. Rounded data (which you should never do twice) if you use them in subsequent calculations will produce exactly the ‘errors’ you see.
The Daily data is accurate. Your attempted reconstruction from Hourly figures is not.
Until you can explain why 2 stations below are so consistently different you prove nothing.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04140_lewistown_42-wsw.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/53151_fallbrook_5-ne.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uscrn-diffs-lewistown-42-wsw.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uscrn-diffs-fallbrook-5-ne.jpeg
There are 138 USCRN stations that are marked as active and not closed or experimental.
04140,”Montana Department Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Judith River WMA”,46.88,-110.28,5070,4.78,5.47,0.69
53139,Death Valley National Park (Stovepipe Wells Site),36.6,-117.14,84,25.49,26.13,0.64
96404,”FWS, Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge (Seaton Roadhouse site)”,62.73,-141.2,2000,-1.73,-1.17,0.56
04136,”US Fish & Wildlife Service, Turnbull NWR (Headquarters Site)”,47.41,-117.52,2267,7.32,7.85,0.52
53154,”U.S. Army, Yuma Proving Ground (Redbluff Pavement Site)”,32.83,-114.18,620,23.47,23.99,0.52
04138,Golden Spike National Historic Site (Visitor Center Site),41.61,-112.54,4951,8.58,9.06,0.48
26563,Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (Kenai Moose Research Center),60.72,-150.44,282,1.6,2.07,0.47
03062,”NPS, Valles Caldera National Preserve”,35.85,-106.52,8716,4.82,5.27,0.46
04994,Agassiz National Wildlife Refuge (Maintenance Shop Site),48.3,-95.87,1150,3.43,3.86,0.43
96406,”FWS, Nowitna National Wildlife Refuge (Lake Site)”,64.5,-154.12,259,-0.72,-0.29,0.43
04130,Glacier National Park (St. Mary Site),48.74,-113.43,4555,4.26,4.68,0.41
03074,Jornada USDA ARS Experimental Range (Jornada Headquarters Site),32.61,-106.74,4327,15.59,15.98,0.39
94081,South Dakota School & Public Lands,45.51,-103.3,2883,6.43,6.81,0.38
96409,”BLM, Toolik Field Station”,68.64,-149.39,2461,-6.84,-6.48,0.36
53136,Nevada Test Site (Desert Rock Meteorological Lab),36.62,-116.02,3284,17.65,18.01,0.36
94645,Aroostook National Wildlife Ref. (Fire Training Area),46.96,-67.88,737,3.92,4.24,0.33
94060,Fort Peck Indian Res. (Poplar River Site),48.3,-105.1,2085,4.92,5.25,0.33
26562,Lake Clark National Park,60.19,-154.31,321,2.16,2.5,0.33
54810,Michigan State University (Upper Peninsula Experiment Station),46.33,-86.92,875,4.92,5.23,0.31
04139,”Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge, (Little Sheldon Site)”,41.84,-119.63,6500,6.42,6.73,0.31
03048,Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge (LTER Site),34.35,-106.88,4847,14.96,15.26,0.3
04137,”Bannack State Park, Old Freight Road Site”,45.15,-113,5971,3.87,4.16,0.3
25380,”The Nature Conservancy, Gustavus Forelands Preserve”,58.42,-135.69,20,5.14,5.43,0.29
94077,Agate Fossil Beds National Monument (Visitor Center Site),42.42,-103.73,4406,7.24,7.52,0.28
94644,University of Maine (Rogers Farm Site),44.92,-68.7,127,6.43,6.71,0.28
53131,Sonora Desert Museum,32.23,-111.16,2733,21.21,21.48,0.27
04128,Northern Great Basin Experimental Range (Rainout Site),43.47,-119.69,4583,7.45,7.71,0.26
04127,ARS NW Watershed Research Cntr. (Reynolds Creek Site),43.2,-116.75,3950,9.45,9.7,0.25
54797,University of Rhode Island (Peckham Farm Site),41.47,-71.54,106,9.78,10.03,0.25
25522,”NPS, Katmai National Park (Contact Creek)”,58.2,-155.92,661,2.83,3.08,0.25
94088,”Bear Lodge Ranger Dist, Black Hills NF (Massengale Flats Site)”,44.51,-104.43,5792,5.06,5.3,0.24
26564,”Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, Ivotuk Airstrip”,68.48,-155.75,1909,-7.22,-6.98,0.24
64758,Cornell University (Harford Teaching & Research Center),42.44,-76.24,1228,7.71,7.95,0.23
94084,Des Lacs National Wildlife Refuge (HB-4 Site),48.96,-102.17,1842,3.45,3.67,0.23
25711,NOAA National Weather Service St Paul,57.15,-170.21,20,1.91,2.13,0.22
54903,Necedah National Wildlife Refuge (Rynearson Dam No. 2),44.06,-90.17,933,7.6,7.81,0.21
54796,University of Rhode Island (Plains Road Site),41.49,-71.54,115,10,10.2,0.2
23583,”City of Aleknagik, Aleknagik Airport”,59.28,-158.61,80,1.31,1.5,0.19
94075,Mountain Research Station INSTAAR Univ. of CO (Hills Mill),40.03,-105.54,9828,1.91,2.11,0.19
26655,NANA Regional Corp Red Dog Mine,68.02,-162.92,942,-3.32,-3.13,0.19
54932,Audubon Center of the North Woods,46.11,-92.99,1130,5.62,5.79,0.18
56401,”BLM, Paxson Airport”,63.02,-145.5,2669,-1.83,-1.64,0.18
94078,Nature Conservancy (Red Canyon Ranch),42.67,-108.66,5773,7.94,8.12,0.18
96405,”Eyak Corporation, Cordova”,60.47,-145.35,83,5.15,5.32,0.17
64756,Institute of Ecosystem Studies (Environmental Monitoring Station),41.78,-73.74,413,9.58,9.74,0.16
04126,Craters of the Moon NM & Preserve (Headquarters Area),43.46,-113.55,5920,6.39,6.55,0.16
54811,Northern Illinois Agronomy Research Center,41.84,-88.85,861,8.94,9.09,0.15
27516,NOAA Earth System Res. Lab. Observatory at Utqiagvik (formerly Barrow),71.32,-156.61,15,-9.62,-9.48,0.14
96408,”NPS, Denali National Park (Wonder Lake Campground Site)”,63.45,-150.87,2225,-0.39,-0.25,0.14
03739,Anheuser Busch Coastal Res. Ctr. Univ. of VA (Oyster),37.29,-75.92,29,15.19,15.31,0.13
26565,”AK Department of Natural Resources, Haul Road)”,70.16,-148.46,30,-6.03,-5.91,0.12
53138,Great Basin National Park (Gravel Pit Site),39.01,-114.2,6617,9.57,9.68,0.11
63855,Univ. of Tennessee (Plateau Research and Education Center),36.01,-85.13,1913,12.69,12.8,0.11
54937,”North Dakota State University, Central Grasslands (Sec. 14 Site)”,46.77,-99.47,1920,4.85,4.96,0.11
25381,”NOAA, National Weather Service (Annette Island)”,55.04,-131.58,105,8.24,8.34,0.11
96407,”FWS, Selawik National Wildlife Refuge (Cabin Site)”,66.56,-159,22,-1.41,-1.31,0.1
54795,University of New Hampshire (Thompson Farm Site),43.1,-70.94,63,8.54,8.63,0.09
04125,John Day Fossil Beds Nat`l. Mon.(Sheep Rock Hdqs.),44.55,-119.64,2245,11.75,11.83,0.09
03761,Stroud Water Research Center,39.85,-75.78,400,11.94,12.03,0.09
26494,NOAA / NESDIS (FCDAS),64.97,-147.51,1140,-0.06,0.02,0.08
93243,Kesterson Reservoir (US Bureau of Reclamation),37.23,-120.88,78,15.68,15.77,0.08
23909,”White River Trace Conservation Area (Stand 4, Compartment 7)”,37.63,-91.72,1198,12.74,12.82,0.08
26656,”FWS, Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge (South Volcano Lake)”,61.34,-164.07,153,0.37,0.44,0.07
54808,Univ. of Illinois (Bondville Environ. & Atmos. Resrch. Stn.),40.05,-88.37,700,10.94,11.01,0.07
54794,University of New Hampshire (Kingman Farm Site),43.17,-70.92,119,8.61,8.68,0.07
22016,Big Bend National Park,29.34,-103.2,3494,20.04,20.1,0.06
23906,Aransas National Wildlife Refuge (Weather Site),28.3,-96.82,15,21.37,21.43,0.06
13301,University of Missouri (Forage Systems Research Station),39.86,-93.14,833,11.77,11.8,0.03
03054,Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge (Headquarters Site),33.95,-102.77,3742,14.66,14.7,0.03
94074,Ag. Res. Svc. Central Plains Exp. Range (SGS LTER at CSU),40.8,-104.75,5390,8.72,8.75,0.03
03063,USDA Comanche National Grassland,37.86,-103.82,4386,11.48,11.51,0.03
04131,Grand Teton National Park,43.66,-110.71,6466,2.94,2.96,0.02
94080,Theodore Roosevelt National Park (Painted Canyon Site),46.89,-103.37,2771,6.4,6.42,0.02
53149,”Capitol Reef National Park, Goosenecks Road Site”,38.3,-111.29,6204,10.78,10.8,0.02
63838,University of Kentucky (Woodford County Site),38.09,-84.74,891,13.15,13.16,0.01
53974,Kansas State University (Konza Prairie Biological Station),39.1,-96.6,1137,12.96,12.97,0.01
94059,Fort Peck Indian Res. (Give Out Morgan Site),48.48,-105.2,2643,5.66,5.66,0
53927,Oklahoma State University (Efaw Farm Site),36.13,-97.1,888,15.38,15.39,0
54851,North Appalachian Experimental Watershed (CRN site),40.36,-81.78,1120,10.78,10.77,-0.01
54856,”OSU, Ohio Agricultural Research & Development Center (Snyder Farm Site)”,40.76,-81.91,1102,10.59,10.58,-0.01
25382,”FS, Tongass National Forest (Yakutat)”,59.5,-139.68,26,4.53,4.52,-0.01
53155,Babbitt Ranches (Meridian Site),35.75,-112.33,5990,11.41,11.39,-0.01
63857,Sand Mountain Research / Extension (Northwest Pasture),34.28,-85.96,1152,15.38,15.36,-0.02
63869,”Auburn University, Gulf Coast Research and Extension Center”,30.54,-87.87,95,19.13,19.1,-0.03
23904,”LFST Br. Exp. Stn.,Univ.of AR, Div.of Agriculture(Field #1)”,35.82,-91.78,455,14.76,14.73,-0.03
53132,”BLM, Appleton-Whittell Research Ranch”,31.59,-110.5,4811,15.62,15.57,-0.04
04990,EROS Data Center,43.73,-96.62,1594,7.43,7.4,-0.04
94996,Audubon Society (Spring Creek Prairie Site),40.69,-96.85,1372,11.07,11.03,-0.04
63898,”Feldun-Purdue Agricultural Center, (Pasture 17 Site)”,38.88,-86.57,760,12.53,12.49,-0.04
54902,Neal Smith NWR (NOAA Station Site),41.55,-93.28,921,9.88,9.84,-0.04
54854,”National Weather Service, Gaylord”,44.9,-84.72,1461,6.27,6.22,-0.05
54933,”The Nature Conservancy (Samuel H. Ordway Prairie, Hdq. Site)”,45.71,-99.12,1957,5.89,5.83,-0.06
94995,University of Nebraska (Prairie Pines Site),40.84,-96.56,1189,10.91,10.85,-0.06
03072,”Ft. Chadbourne Foundation, (Foundation Entrance Site)”,32.04,-100.24,1997,17.78,17.72,-0.06
03733,Canaan Valley Resort State Park (Cabins Area),39.01,-79.47,3390,8.37,8.3,-0.07
53152,Univ. of California – Santa Barbara (Coal Oil Point Reserve),34.41,-119.87,18,14.95,14.88,-0.07
53926,Oklahoma State Univ. (Ag. Research Farm Site),36.11,-97.09,890,15.97,15.87,-0.09
23803,”MSU, MAFES, North MS R&E Center, (North MS Branch)”,34.82,-89.43,484,15.58,15.47,-0.1
25630,USGS Shumagin Magnetic Observatory,55.34,-160.46,240,4.97,4.86,-0.11
94085,Fort Pierre National Grassland (Chester West),44.01,-100.35,2124,8.38,8.23,-0.15
63856,Cumberland Island National Seashore (Stafford Field),30.8,-81.45,25,20.17,20.01,-0.16
92821,”NASA Kennedy Space Center, SLF Mid-Field Site”,28.61,-80.69,3,22.29,22.14,-0.16
23908,Shawnee Trail Conservation Area,37.42,-94.58,952,14.03,13.86,-0.17
25379,USGS Sitka Magnetic Observatory,57.05,-135.32,78,6.41,6.25,-0.17
94079,Gudmundsen Sandhills Laboratory (Site 1),42.06,-101.44,3740,9.06,8.88,-0.17
63849,Mammoth Cave National Park (Job Corps Site),37.25,-86.23,790,14.55,14.37,-0.18
04236,”DOI, William L. Finley NWR (East end of Field 22)”,44.41,-123.32,312,11.26,11.07,-0.19
03759,Thomas Jefferson Foundation,37.99,-78.46,1177,13.95,13.75,-0.2
63850,”University of GA, Phil Campbell Sr Natural Resource Conservation Center”,33.78,-83.38,741,17.07,16.82,-0.25
04141,South Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve (Frederickson Marsh Site),43.27,-124.31,12,10.32,10.07,-0.25
03758,Duke Forest – Duke University,35.97,-79.09,562,15.53,15.29,-0.25
03060,Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park (Vernal Mesa),38.54,-107.69,8402,6.19,5.94,-0.25
53968,NASA (National Scientific Balloon Facility),31.77,-95.72,383,19.66,19.38,-0.28
63858,”Auburn University, Black Belt Research and Extension Center”,32.45,-87.24,193,17.91,17.62,-0.29
94082,Dinosaur National Monument (Hdq. Maintenance Site),40.24,-108.96,6062,9.68,9.38,-0.29
03067,The Nature Conservancy Kansas (Smoky Valley Ranch),38.87,-100.96,2870,11.87,11.56,-0.3
03055,OK Panhandle Research & Extn. Center (Native Grassland Site),36.59,-101.59,3266,14.02,13.72,-0.3
53960,University of Louisiana at Lafayette (Cade Farm),30.09,-91.87,35,20.15,19.84,-0.31
63831,Mississippi State University (Coastal Plain Exp. Station),32.33,-89.07,374,17.4,17.08,-0.32
03047,Sandhills State Park,31.62,-102.8,2724,19.03,18.71,-0.32
53878,NC Mtn. Horticultural Crops Res. Ctr. (Backlund Site),35.41,-82.55,2103,13.25,12.93,-0.33
63826,Clemson University (Edisto Research & Edu. Ctr.),33.35,-81.32,317,17.97,17.63,-0.33
03728,SCDNR (Santee Coastal Reserve),33.15,-79.36,9,18.62,18.27,-0.35
53150,”Yosemite National Park, (Crane Flat Lookout)”,37.75,-119.82,6620,10.23,9.88,-0.35
93245,University of California – Davis (Bodega Marine Laboratory),38.32,-123.07,63,12.05,11.66,-0.39
63829,Robert W. Woodruff Foundation (Ichauway-Dubignon Site),31.19,-84.44,156,19.39,19,-0.39
53961,Upper Ouachita National Wildlife Refuge,32.88,-92.11,88,17.7,17.31,-0.39
03061,Mesa Verde National Park (Far View Site),37.25,-108.5,8034,8.91,8.44,-0.47
63828,Robert W. Woodruff Foundation (Ichauway-George Site),31.31,-84.47,176,18.97,18.49,-0.48
04222,Whiskeytown National Recreation Area (RAWS Site),40.65,-122.6,1418,16.15,15.63,-0.51
23907,Balcones National Wildlife Refuge (Flying X Ranch),30.62,-98.08,1361,20.07,19.55,-0.52
53877,North Carolina Arboretum (Bierbaum Site),35.49,-82.61,2151,12.84,12.31,-0.53
04223,North Cascades National Park (Marblemount),48.54,-121.44,407,10.1,9.54,-0.56
92827,Archbold Biological Station,27.15,-81.36,150,22.9,22.22,-0.68
04237,Olympic National Park (Bishop Field Site),47.51,-123.81,286,10.05,9.38,-0.68
12987,Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR (La Sal Del Rey),26.52,-98.06,64,24.04,23.34,-0.7
92826,Big Cypress National Preserve (Ochopee Headquarters Vista Site),25.89,-81.31,4,24.54,23.56,-0.98
53151,San Diego State Univ`s Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve (Old Mine Road),33.43,-117.19,1140,18.87,17.51,-1.36
USCRN Stations in tab separated format.
WBAN COUNTRY STATE LOCATION VECTOR NAME LATITUDE LONGITUDE ELEVATION STATUS COMMISSIONING CLOSING OPERATION PAIRING NETWORK STATION_ID
03047 US TX Monahans 6 ENE Sandhills State Park 31.62 -102.8 2724 Commissioned 2004-01-11 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1019
03048 US NM Socorro 20 N Sevilleta National Wildlife Refuge (LTER Site) 34.35 -106.88 4847 Commissioned 2004-01-11 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1020
03054 US TX Muleshoe 19 S Muleshoe National Wildlife Refuge (Headquarters Site) 33.95 -102.77 3742 Commissioned 2004-04-22 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1067
03055 US OK Goodwell 2 E OK Panhandle Research & Extn. Center (Native Grassland Site) 36.59 -101.59 3266 Commissioned 2004-04-22 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1068
03060 US CO Montrose 11 ENE Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park (Vernal Mesa) 38.54 -107.69 8402 Commissioned 2004-09-07 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1109
03061 US CO Cortez 8 SE Mesa Verde National Park (Far View Site) 37.25 -108.5 8034 Commissioned 2006-01-05 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1232
03062 US NM Los Alamos 13 W NPS, Valles Caldera National Preserve 35.85 -106.52 8716 Commissioned 2005-02-10 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1138
03063 US CO La Junta 17 WSW USDA Comanche National Grassland 37.86 -103.82 4386 Commissioned 2004-09-07 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1110
03067 US KS Oakley 19 SSW The Nature Conservancy Kansas (Smoky Valley Ranch) 38.87 -100.96 2870 Commissioned 2006-01-05 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1231
03072 US TX Bronte 11 NNE Ft. Chadbourne Foundation, (Foundation Entrance Site) 32.04 -100.24 1997 Commissioned 2007-02-22 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1130
03074 US NM Las Cruces 20 N Jornada USDA ARS Experimental Range (Jornada Headquarters Site) 32.61 -106.74 4327 Commissioned 2007-06-10 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1307
03075 US NM Dulce 1 NW BIA Branch of Forestry 36.93 -107 6806 Non-comissioned 2011-03-03 19:00:00.0 Abandoned USRCRN 1650
03076 US CO Grand Junction 9 W NPS, Colorado National Monument 39.1 -108.73 5806 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1651
03077 US AZ Holbrook 17 ESE NPS, Petrified Forest National Park (NADP site) 34.82 -109.89 5613 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1652
03078 US CO Eads 16 ENE NPS, Sand Creek Massacre National Historic Site 38.54 -102.5 3967 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1653
03079 US CO Saguache 2 WNW Saguache Municipal Airport 38.09 -106.17 7823 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1654
03080 US NM Reserve 1 W FS, Gila National Forest (Reserve Ranger Station) 33.71 -108.77 5842 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1655
03081 US UT Tropic 9 SE Kodachrome Basin State Park 37.51 -111.97 5895 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1656
03082 US NM Carrizozo 1 W Carrizozo Municipal Airport 33.64 -105.89 5366 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1658
03083 US CO Stratton 24 N Liberty School, Kirk 39.65 -102.62 4212 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1660
03084 US CO Center A 4 SSW Colorado State University (San Luis Valley Research Center) 37.7 -106.14 7678 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1701
03085 US AZ Bowie 23 SSE NPS, Chiricahua National Monument (NADP site) 32 -109.38 5133 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1671
03086 US CO Springfield 6 WSW FS, Comanche National Grassland near Springfield 37.38 -102.71 4557 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1698
03087 US NM Santa Fe 20 WNW NPS, Bandelier National Monument 35.82 -106.31 7258 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1704
03088 US CO Woodland Park 14 WSW NPS, Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument 38.91 -105.26 8535 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1696
03089 US CO Rocky Ford 1 ESE Colorado State University (Arkansas Valley Research Center) 38.03 -103.69 4170 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1695
03090 US NM Taos 27 NW FS, Carson National Forest (Tres Piedras Ranger Station) 36.65 -105.97 8151 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1692
03091 US CO Kim 9 WSW FS, Comanche National Grassland near Kim 37.21 -103.5 5870 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1697
03092 US NM Raton 26 ESE NPS, Capulin Volcano National Monument 36.77 -103.98 7232 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1714
03093 US CO Genoa 35 N Woodlin School 39.78 -103.51 4764 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1711
03094 US NM Clayton 3 ENE FS, Kiowa and Rita Blanca National Grasslands near Clayton 36.47 -103.12 4885 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1707
03095 US NM Mills 6 WSW FS, Kiowa and Rita Blanca National Grasslands near Mills 36.06 -104.35 5866 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1708
03096 US CO Rifle 23 NW BLM Roan Plateau 39.76 -108.12 7550 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1713
03097 US NM Mountainair 2 WSW FS, Cibola National Forest (Mountainair Ranger Station) 34.51 -106.27 6489 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1716
03098 US CO Eagle 13 SSE Sylvan Lake State Park 39.48 -106.73 8605 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1733
03099 US CO Craig 30 N BLM near Craig 40.94 -107.6 6518 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1728
03728 US SC McClellanville 7 NE SCDNR (Santee Coastal Reserve) 33.15 -79.36 9 Commissioned 2004-01-19 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1030
03733 US WV Elkins 21 ENE Canaan Valley Resort State Park (Cabins Area) 39.01 -79.47 3390 Commissioned 2004-01-11 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1024
03739 US VA Cape Charles 5 ENE Anheuser Busch Coastal Res. Ctr. Univ. of VA (Oyster) 37.29 -75.92 29 Commissioned 2004-04-22 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1085
03758 US NC Durham 11 W Duke Forest – Duke University 35.97 -79.09 562 Commissioned 2007-06-10 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1347
03759 US VA Charlottesville 2 SSE Thomas Jefferson Foundation 37.99 -78.46 1177 Commissioned 2007-05-04 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1346
03761 US PA Avondale 2 N Stroud Water Research Center 39.85 -75.78 400 Commissioned 2006-09-28 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1123
04125 US OR John Day 35 WNW John Day Fossil Beds Nat’l. Mon.(Sheep Rock Hdqs.) 44.55 -119.64 2245 Commissioned 2004-06-07 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1145
04126 US ID Arco 17 SW Craters of the Moon NM & Preserve (Headquarters Area) 43.46 -113.55 5920 Commissioned 2004-01-11 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1021
04127 US ID Murphy 10 W ARS NW Watershed Research Cntr. (Reynolds Creek Site) 43.2 -116.75 3950 Commissioned 2004-01-11 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1022
04128 US OR Riley 10 WSW Northern Great Basin Experimental Range (Rainout Site) 43.47 -119.69 4583 Commissioned 2004-01-25 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1023
04130 US MT St. Mary 1 SSW Glacier National Park (St. Mary Site) 48.74 -113.43 4555 Commissioned 2004-01-11 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1046
04131 US WY Moose 1 NNE Grand Teton National Park 43.66 -110.71 6466 Commissioned 2004-08-12 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1107
04136 US WA Spokane 17 SSW US Fish & Wildlife Service, Turnbull NWR (Headquarters Site) 47.41 -117.52 2267 Commissioned 2007-09-27 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1467
04137 US MT Dillon 18 WSW Bannack State Park, Old Freight Road Site 45.15 -113 5971 Commissioned 2007-09-27 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1468
04138 US UT Brigham City 28 WNW Golden Spike National Historic Site (Visitor Center Site) 41.61 -112.54 4951 Commissioned 2007-12-18 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1507
04139 US NV Denio 52 WSW Sheldon National Wildlife Refuge, (Little Sheldon Site) 41.84 -119.63 6500 Commissioned 2008-07-29 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1532
04140 US MT Lewistown 42 WSW Montana Department Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Judith River WMA 46.88 -110.28 5070 Commissioned 2008-09-04 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1612
04141 US OR Coos Bay 8 SW South Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve (Frederickson Marsh Site) 43.27 -124.31 12 Commissioned 2008-10-01 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1610
04143 US UT Provo 22 E FS, Uinta-Wasatch-Cache National Forest (Hub Guard Station) 40.28 -111.23 7808 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1746
04222 US CA Redding 12 WNW Whiskeytown National Recreation Area (RAWS Site) 40.65 -122.6 1418 Commissioned 2004-01-25 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1015
04223 US WA Darrington 21 NNE North Cascades National Park (Marblemount) 48.54 -121.44 407 Commissioned 2004-01-25 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1017
04236 US OR Corvallis 10 SSW DOI, William L. Finley NWR (East end of Field 22) 44.41 -123.32 312 Commissioned 2006-11-29 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1234
04237 US WA Quinault 4 NE Olympic National Park (Bishop Field Site) 47.51 -123.81 286 Commissioned 2006-11-29 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1233
04990 US SD Sioux Falls 14 NNE EROS Data Center 43.73 -96.62 1594 Commissioned 2004-01-11 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1009
04994 US MN Goodridge 12 NNW Agassiz National Wildlife Refuge (Maintenance Shop Site) 48.3 -95.87 1150 Commissioned 2004-01-11 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1039
12987 US TX Edinburg 17 NNE Lower Rio Grande Valley NWR (La Sal Del Rey) 26.52 -98.06 64 Commissioned 2004-04-22 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1066
13301 US MO Chillicothe 22 ENE University of Missouri (Forage Systems Research Station) 39.86 -93.14 833 Commissioned 2005-10-26 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1142
21514 US HI Mauna Loa 5 NNE Mauna Loa Obsv., NOAA Earth Systems Res. Lab.,Global Mon. Div. 19.53 -155.57 11179 Experimental Operational USCRN 1187
21515 US HI Hilo 5 S University of Hawaii Waiakea Experiment Station 19.64 -155.08 622 Experimental Operational USCRN 1186
22016 US TX Panther Junction 2 N Big Bend National Park 29.34 -103.2 3494 Commissioned 2007-06-10 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1306
23583 US AK Aleknagik 1 NNE City of Aleknagik, Aleknagik Airport 59.28 -158.61 80 Commissioned 2020-10-12 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1801
23801 US AL Troy 2 W Troy 31.79 -86 472 Experimental Operational Alabama-USRCRN 1552
23802 US AL Thomasville 2 S Thomasville 31.88 -87.73 350 Experimental Operational Alabama-USRCRN 1551
23803 US MS Holly Springs 4 N MSU, MAFES, North MS R&E Center, (North MS Branch) 34.82 -89.43 484 Commissioned 2008-04-03 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1570
23904 US AR Batesville 8 WNW LFST Br. Exp. Stn.,Univ.of AR, Div.of Agriculture(Field #1) 35.82 -91.78 455 Commissioned 2007-02-22 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1129
23906 US TX Port Aransas 32 NNE Aransas National Wildlife Refuge (Weather Site) 28.3 -96.82 15 Commissioned 2008-04-01 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1387
23907 US TX Austin 33 NW Balcones National Wildlife Refuge (Flying X Ranch) 30.62 -98.08 1361 Commissioned 2008-04-03 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1386
23908 US MO Joplin 24 N Shawnee Trail Conservation Area 37.42 -94.58 952 Commissioned 2007-08-02 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1407
23909 US MO Salem 10 W White River Trace Conservation Area (Stand 4, Compartment 7) 37.63 -91.72 1198 Commissioned 2007-08-02 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1406
25379 US AK Sitka 1 NE USGS Sitka Magnetic Observatory 57.05 -135.32 78 Commissioned 2013-07-21 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1166
25380 US AK Gustavus 2 NE The Nature Conservancy, Gustavus Forelands Preserve 58.42 -135.69 20 Commissioned 2013-07-24 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1780
25381 US AK Metlakatla 6 S NOAA, National Weather Service (Annette Island) 55.04 -131.58 105 Commissioned 2013-07-24 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1787
25382 US AK Yakutat 3 SSE FS, Tongass National Forest (Yakutat) 59.5 -139.68 26 Commissioned 2017-09-04 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1796
25522 US AK King Salmon 42 SE NPS, Katmai National Park (Contact Creek) 58.2 -155.92 661 Commissioned 2013-07-24 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1788
25630 US AK Sand Point 1 ENE USGS Shumagin Magnetic Observatory 55.34 -160.46 240 Commissioned 2010-09-06 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1670
25711 US AK St. Paul 4 NE NOAA National Weather Service St Paul 57.15 -170.21 20 Commissioned 2013-07-22 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1143
26494 US AK Fairbanks 11 NE NOAA / NESDIS (FCDAS) 64.97 -147.51 1140 Commissioned 2013-07-22 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1008
26562 US AK Port Alsworth 1 SW Lake Clark National Park 60.19 -154.31 321 Commissioned 2010-09-06 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1691
26563 US AK Kenai 29 ENE Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (Kenai Moose Research Center) 60.72 -150.44 282 Commissioned 2011-09-11 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1753
26564 US AK Ivotuk 1 NNE Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, Ivotuk Airstrip 68.48 -155.75 1909 Commissioned 2015-09-28 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1791
26565 US AK Deadhorse 3 S AK Department of Natural Resources, Haul Road) 70.16 -148.46 30 Commissioned 2015-09-28 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1793
26655 US AK Red Dog Mine 3 SSW NANA Regional Corp Red Dog Mine 68.02 -162.92 942 Commissioned 2011-09-11 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1754
26656 US AK Bethel 87 WNW FWS, Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge (South Volcano Lake) 61.34 -164.07 153 Commissioned 2019-09-22 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1800
27516 US AK Utqiaġvik formerly Barrow 4 ENE NOAA Earth System Res. Lab. Observatory at Utqiaġvik (formerly Barrow) 71.32 -156.61 15 Commissioned 2013-07-21 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1007
37201 RS SA Tiksi 4 SSE Roshydromet Observatory at Tiksi 71.58 128.91 30 Non-comissioned 2018-11-05 19:00:00.0 Closed USCRN 1789
53002 US NM Artesia 2 WNW Artesia Municipal Airport 32.85 -104.45 3501 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1729
53003 US NM Grants 2 S NPS, Northwest New Mexico Interagency (BLM, FS, NPS) Visitor Center 35.11 -107.83 6443 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1730
53004 US UT Bluff 32 NW NPS, Natural Bridges National Monument 37.6 -109.98 6428 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1731
53005 US CO Buena Vista 2 SSE Central Colorado Regional Airport 38.81 -106.12 7933 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1735
53006 US AZ Amado 23 W FWS, Buenos Aires National Wildlife Refuge 31.69 -111.44 3300 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1734
53007 US CO Colorado Springs 23 NW FS, Rocky Mountain Research Stations (Manitou Experimental Forest) 39.08 -105.08 7872 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1736
53008 US NM Clovis 7 N Ned Houk State Park 34.51 -103.17 4316 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1703
53009 US NM Ramah 9 SE NPS, El Morro National Monument 35.04 -108.36 7164 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1739
53010 US UT Monticello 24 NW BLM Indian Creek 38.14 -109.61 5025 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1745
53011 US AZ Tsaile 1 SSW Dine College 36.29 -109.21 7071 Non-comissioned 2013-06-23 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1741
53012 US UT Blanding 26 SSW BLM near Sand Island Recreation Area 37.26 -109.6 4390 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1742
53013 US UT Cedar City 18 SSE NPS, Zion National Park (Kolob Canyons) 37.45 -113.22 5096 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1743
53014 US UT Mexican Hat 10 NW BLM near Muley Point 37.25 -109.98 6364 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1744
53015 US NM Hagerman 10 ESE BLM near Hagerman 33.08 -104.16 3552 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1748
53016 US NM Vaughn 36 SSE BLM near Ramon 34.13 -104.93 5034 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1749
53017 US NM Aztec 43 E FS, Carson National Forest (Jicarilla Ranger District) 36.74 -107.21 7024 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1747
53019 US AZ Whiteriver A 1 SW BIA, Whiteriver, Fort Apache Tribe (Fire Management Facility) 33.82 -109.98 5173 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1750
53022 US NM Elida 14 SW BLM near Kenna 33.8 -103.84 4313 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1771
53023 US UT Spanish Valley 25 SW NPS, Canyonlands National Park (Island in the Sky) (NADP site) 38.31 -109.85 6275 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1776
53024 US NM Las Vegas 6 NE Las Vegas Municipal Airport 35.66 -105.14 6847 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1773
53025 US NM Hachita 7 ESE BLM near Hachita 31.88 -108.2 4652 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1781
53026 US NM Pinon 8 SSE BLM near Pinon 32.51 -105.33 5456 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1784
53131 US AZ Tucson 11 W Sonora Desert Museum 32.23 -111.16 2733 Commissioned 2004-01-11 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1011
53132 US AZ Elgin 5 S BLM, Appleton-Whittell Research Ranch 31.59 -110.5 4811 Commissioned 2004-01-11 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1010
53136 US NV Mercury 3 SSW Nevada Test Site (Desert Rock Meteorological Lab) 36.62 -116.02 3284 Commissioned 2004-06-07 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1049
53138 US NV Baker 5 W Great Basin National Park (Gravel Pit Site) 39.01 -114.2 6617 Commissioned 2004-06-28 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1106
53139 US CA Stovepipe Wells 1 SW Death Valley National Park (Stovepipe Wells Site) 36.6 -117.14 84 Commissioned 2004-06-07 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1105
53149 US UT Torrey 7 E Capitol Reef National Park, Goosenecks Road Site 38.3 -111.29 6204 Commissioned 2007-12-18 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1509
53150 US CA Yosemite Village 12 W Yosemite National Park, (Crane Flat Lookout) 37.75 -119.82 6620 Commissioned 2007-12-18 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1508
53151 US CA Fallbrook 5 NE San Diego State Univ’s Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve (Old Mine Road) 33.43 -117.19 1140 Commissioned 2008-06-08 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1528
53152 US CA Santa Barbara 11 W Univ. of California – Santa Barbara (Coal Oil Point Reserve) 34.41 -119.87 18 Commissioned 2008-09-20 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1529
53154 US AZ Yuma 27 ENE U.S. Army, Yuma Proving Ground (Redbluff Pavement Site) 32.83 -114.18 620 Commissioned 2008-09-02 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1590
53155 US AZ Williams 35 NNW Babbitt Ranches (Meridian Site) 35.75 -112.33 5990 Commissioned 2008-07-29 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1613
53156 US AZ Phoenix 7 S South Mountain Regional Park 33.34 -112.08 1404 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1661
53159 US AZ Cameron 25 SSE NPS, Wupatki National Monument (Woodhouse Mesa) 35.5 -111.34 4807 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1705
53160 US AZ Camp Verde 3 N NPS, Montezuma Castle National Monument (Water Tank Butte) 34.61 -111.84 3434 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1694
53162 US AZ Coolidge 5 W NPS, Casa Grande Ruins National Monument 32.99 -111.53 1425 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1706
53163 US NM Socorro 17 WSW FS, Cibola National Forest (Magdalena Ridge Observatory) 33.97 -107.18 10486 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1715
53164 US AZ Page 9 WSW NPS, Glen Canyon National Recreation Area (Lees Ferry) 36.86 -111.6 3254 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1710
53165 US UT Delta 4 NE Delta Municipal Airport 39.38 -112.5 4761 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1717
53166 US UT St. George 15 NE BLM near White Reef 37.21 -113.37 3417 Non-comissioned 2012-09-26 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1721
53167 US UT Midway 3 NE Utah Valley University (Wasatch Campus) 40.54 -111.41 5748 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1722
53168 US AZ Ajo 29 S NPS, Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument 31.94 -112.8 1661 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1726
53169 US AZ Kayenta 16 WSW NPS, Navajo National Monument 36.68 -110.54 7274 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1727
53170 US AZ Heber 3 SE FS, Sitgreaves National Forest (Black Mesa Ranger Station) 34.39 -110.56 6625 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1702
53171 US UT Milford 42 WNW FS, Rocky Mountain Research Stations (Desert Range Experimental Station) 38.59 -113.75 5255 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1740
53172 US AZ Lake Havasu City 19 SE Buckskin Mountain State Park 34.25 -114.13 416 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1737
53173 US NM Nageezi 18 SSW NPS, Chaco Culture National Historical Park 36.03 -107.9 6449 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1738
53174 US UT Price 3 E Carbon County Airport 39.6 -110.75 5835 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1755
53176 US AZ Gila Bend 3 ENE Gila Bend Municipal Airport 32.96 -112.66 780 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1756
53180 US AZ Kingman 8 NE Kingman Airport 35.25 -113.93 3425 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1775
53181 US AZ Safford 5 NNE Safford Regional Airport 32.85 -109.63 3176 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1774
53182 US OK Goodwell 2 SE Oklahoma Panhandle State Univ., School of Agriculture (Permanent Pasture) 36.56 -101.6 3282 Non-comissioned Operational USCRN 1772
53183 US AZ Fredonia 7 SSE BLM near Fredonia 36.85 -112.45 5147 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1782
53184 US AZ Meadview 7 N NPS, Lake Mead National Recreation Area (Pearce Ferry Airport) 36.09 -114.04 2938 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1783
53185 US UT Beaver 15 E FS, Fishlake National Forest (Big Flat Ranger Station) 38.27 -112.37 10132 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1785
53877 US NC Asheville 8 SSW North Carolina Arboretum (Bierbaum Site) 35.49 -82.61 2151 Commissioned 2000-11-13 19:00:00.0 Operational 53878 USCRN 1026
53878 US NC Asheville 13 S NC Mtn. Horticultural Crops Res. Ctr. (Backlund Site) 35.41 -82.55 2103 Commissioned 2000-11-13 19:00:00.0 Operational 53877 USCRN 1027
53926 US OK Stillwater 2 W Oklahoma State Univ. (Ag. Research Farm Site) 36.11 -97.09 890 Commissioned 2004-01-11 19:00:00.0 Operational 53927 USCRN 1005
53927 US OK Stillwater 5 WNW Oklahoma State University (Efaw Farm Site) 36.13 -97.1 888 Commissioned 2004-01-11 19:00:00.0 Operational 53926 USCRN 1006
53960 US LA Lafayette 13 SE University of Louisiana at Lafayette (Cade Farm) 30.09 -91.87 35 Commissioned 2004-01-11 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1013
53961 US LA Monroe 26 N Upper Ouachita National Wildlife Refuge 32.88 -92.11 88 Commissioned 2004-01-11 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1012
53968 US TX Palestine 6 WNW NASA (National Scientific Balloon Facility) 31.77 -95.72 383 Commissioned 2004-01-11 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1018
53974 US KS Manhattan 6 SSW Kansas State University (Konza Prairie Biological Station) 39.1 -96.6 1137 Commissioned 2004-01-11 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1047
54794 US NH Durham 2 N University of New Hampshire (Kingman Farm Site) 43.17 -70.92 119 Commissioned 2004-01-11 19:00:00.0 Operational 54795 USCRN 1041
54795 US NH Durham 2 SSW University of New Hampshire (Thompson Farm Site) 43.1 -70.94 63 Commissioned 2004-01-11 19:00:00.0 Operational 54794 USCRN 1040
54796 US RI Kingston 1 NW University of Rhode Island (Plains Road Site) 41.49 -71.54 115 Commissioned 2004-01-11 19:00:00.0 Operational 54797 USCRN 1042
54797 US RI Kingston 1 W University of Rhode Island (Peckham Farm Site) 41.47 -71.54 106 Commissioned 2004-01-11 19:00:00.0 Operational 54796 USCRN 1043
54808 US IL Champaign 9 SW Univ. of Illinois (Bondville Environ. & Atmos. Resrch. Stn.) 40.05 -88.37 700 Commissioned 2004-01-11 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1037
54810 US MI Chatham 1 SE Michigan State University (Upper Peninsula Experiment Station) 46.33 -86.92 875 Commissioned 2005-04-06 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1113
54811 US IL Shabbona 5 NNE Northern Illinois Agronomy Research Center 41.84 -88.85 861 Commissioned 2004-01-11 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1038
54851 US OH Coshocton 8 NNE North Appalachian Experimental Watershed (CRN site) 40.36 -81.78 1120 Commissioned 2007-01-25 19:00:00.0 2016-09-18 20:00:00.0 Closed USCRN 1125
54854 US MI Gaylord 9 SSW National Weather Service, Gaylord 44.9 -84.72 1461 Commissioned 2007-12-18 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1426
54856 US OH Wooster 3 SSE OSU, Ohio Agricultural Research & Development Center (Snyder Farm Site) 40.76 -81.91 1102 Commissioned 2016-12-12 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1797
54902 US IA Des Moines 17 E Neal Smith NWR (NOAA Station Site) 41.55 -93.28 921 Commissioned 2005-02-10 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1116
54903 US WI Necedah 5 WNW Necedah National Wildlife Refuge (Rynearson Dam No. 2) 44.06 -90.17 933 Commissioned 2005-03-09 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1114
54932 US MN Sandstone 6 W Audubon Center of the North Woods 46.11 -92.99 1130 Commissioned 2007-09-27 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1447
54933 US SD Aberdeen 35 WNW The Nature Conservancy (Samuel H. Ordway Prairie, Hdq. Site) 45.71 -99.12 1957 Commissioned 2007-09-27 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1446
54937 US ND Jamestown 38 WSW North Dakota State University, Central Grasslands (Sec. 14 Site) 46.77 -99.47 1920 Commissioned 2008-09-04 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1611
56401 US AK Glennallen 64 N BLM, Paxson Airport 63.02 -145.5 2669 Commissioned 2014-07-20 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1790
63826 US SC Blackville 3 W Clemson University (Edisto Research & Edu. Ctr.) 33.35 -81.32 317 Commissioned 2004-01-11 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1029
63828 US GA Newton 8 W Robert W. Woodruff Foundation (Ichauway-George Site) 31.31 -84.47 176 Commissioned 2004-01-11 19:00:00.0 Operational 63829 USCRN 1032
63829 US GA Newton 11 SW Robert W. Woodruff Foundation (Ichauway-Dubignon Site) 31.19 -84.44 156 Commissioned 2004-01-11 19:00:00.0 Operational 63828 USCRN 1033
63831 US MS Newton 5 ENE Mississippi State University (Coastal Plain Exp. Station) 32.33 -89.07 374 Commissioned 2004-01-11 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1036
63838 US KY Versailles 3 NNW University of Kentucky (Woodford County Site) 38.09 -84.74 891 Commissioned 2004-01-11 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1028
63849 US KY Bowling Green 21 NNE Mammoth Cave National Park (Job Corps Site) 37.25 -86.23 790 Commissioned 2004-06-28 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1031
63850 US GA Watkinsville 5 SSE University of GA, Phil Campbell Sr Natural Resource Conservation Center 33.78 -83.38 741 Commissioned 2004-06-07 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1111
63855 US TN Crossville 7 NW Univ. of Tennessee (Plateau Research and Education Center) 36.01 -85.13 1913 Commissioned 2005-04-06 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1121
63856 US GA Brunswick 23 S Cumberland Island National Seashore (Stafford Field) 30.8 -81.45 25 Commissioned 2005-04-26 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1120
63857 US AL Gadsden 19 N Sand Mountain Research / Extension (Northwest Pasture) 34.28 -85.96 1152 Commissioned 2005-06-09 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1119
63858 US AL Selma 13 WNW Auburn University, Black Belt Research and Extension Center 32.45 -87.24 193 Commissioned 2005-07-24 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1122
63862 US AL Valley Head 1 SSW Valley Head 34.56 -85.61 1020 Experimental Operational Alabama-USRCRN 1266
63866 US AL Guntersville 2 SW Guntersville Radio Station 34.33 -86.31 620 Experimental 2013-12-15 19:00:00.0 Closed Alabama-USRCRN 1269
63867 US AL Cullman 3 ENE North Alabama Horticultural Research Center 34.19 -86.79 800 Experimental Operational Alabama-USRCRN 1267
63868 US AL Courtland 2 WSW Lawrence County Airport 34.66 -87.34 575 Experimental Operational Alabama-USRCRN 1268
63869 US AL Fairhope 3 NE Auburn University, Gulf Coast Research and Extension Center 30.54 -87.87 95 Commissioned 2006-09-28 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1124
63891 US AL Clanton 2 NE Chilton County Airport 32.85 -86.61 584 Experimental Operational Alabama-USRCRN 1326
63892 US AL Gainesville 2 NE Heflin Lock 32.83 -88.13 107 Experimental Operational Alabama-USRCRN 1327
63893 US AL Greensboro 2 WNW Hale County Jail 32.71 -87.62 280 Experimental Operational Alabama-USRCRN 1328
63894 US AL Muscle Shoals 2 N Muscle Shoals TVA 34.77 -87.63 530 Experimental Operational Alabama-USRCRN 1366
63895 US AL Russellville 4 SSE Russellville 34.45 -87.71 720 Experimental Operational Alabama-USRCRN 1297
63896 US AL Scottsboro 2 NE Scottsboro 34.69 -85.99 636 Experimental Operational Alabama-USRCRN 1296
63897 US AL Selma 6 SSE Craig Field Airport 32.33 -86.97 157 Experimental Operational Alabama-USRCRN 1329
63898 US IN Bedford 5 WNW Feldun-Purdue Agricultural Center, (Pasture 17 Site) 38.88 -86.57 760 Commissioned 2007-12-18 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1510
63899 US AL Brewton 3 NNE Brewton 31.14 -87.05 170 Experimental Operational Alabama-USRCRN 1550
64756 US NY Millbrook 3 W Institute of Ecosystem Studies (Environmental Monitoring Station) 41.78 -73.74 413 Commissioned 2005-03-09 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1118
64757 CA ON Egbert 1 W Environment Canada CARE site 44.23 -79.78 807 Experimental Operational USCRN 1112
64758 US NY Ithaca 13 E Cornell University (Harford Teaching & Research Center) 42.44 -76.24 1228 Commissioned 2005-03-09 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1117
73801 US AL Northport 2 S Oliver Lock & Dam 33.21 -87.59 150 Experimental Operational Alabama-USRCRN 1632
73802 US AL Highland Home 2 S Highland Home 31.91 -86.31 614 Experimental Operational Alabama-USRCRN 1630
73803 US AL Talladega 10 NNE Talladega Municipal Airport 33.57 -86.05 525 Experimental Operational Alabama-USRCRN 1631
92821 US FL Titusville 7 E NASA Kennedy Space Center, SLF Mid-Field Site 28.61 -80.69 3 Commissioned 2005-06-09 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1141
92826 US FL Everglades City 5 NE Big Cypress National Preserve (Ochopee Headquarters Vista Site) 25.89 -81.31 4 Commissioned 2007-06-10 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1128
92827 US FL Sebring 23 SSE Archbold Biological Station 27.15 -81.36 150 Commissioned 2008-04-01 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1530
93243 US CA Merced 23 WSW Kesterson Reservoir (US Bureau of Reclamation) 37.23 -120.88 78 Commissioned 2004-06-07 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1050
93245 US CA Bodega 6 WSW University of California – Davis (Bodega Marine Laboratory) 38.32 -123.07 63 Commissioned 2008-07-29 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1531
94059 US MT Wolf Point 34 NE Fort Peck Indian Res. (Give Out Morgan Site) 48.48 -105.2 2643 Commissioned 2004-04-22 20:00:00.0 Operational 94060 USCRN 1002
94060 US MT Wolf Point 29 ENE Fort Peck Indian Res. (Poplar River Site) 48.3 -105.1 2085 Commissioned 2004-01-25 19:00:00.0 Operational 94059 USCRN 1001
94074 US CO Nunn 7 NNE Ag. Res. Svc. Central Plains Exp. Range (SGS LTER at CSU) 40.8 -104.75 5390 Commissioned 2004-01-11 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1014
94075 US CO Boulder 14 W Mountain Research Station INSTAAR Univ. of CO (Hills Mill) 40.03 -105.54 9828 Commissioned 2004-01-11 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1045
94077 US NE Harrison 20 SSE Agate Fossil Beds National Monument (Visitor Center Site) 42.42 -103.73 4406 Commissioned 2004-01-11 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1025
94078 US WY Lander 11 SSE Nature Conservancy (Red Canyon Ranch) 42.67 -108.66 5773 Commissioned 2004-08-12 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1144
94079 US NE Whitman 5 ENE Gudmundsen Sandhills Laboratory (Site 1) 42.06 -101.44 3740 Commissioned 2005-03-09 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1115
94080 US ND Medora 7 E Theodore Roosevelt National Park (Painted Canyon Site) 46.89 -103.37 2771 Commissioned 2005-03-09 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1139
94081 US SD Buffalo 13 ESE South Dakota School & Public Lands 45.51 -103.3 2883 Commissioned 2005-03-09 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1140
94082 US CO Dinosaur 2 E Dinosaur National Monument (Hdq. Maintenance Site) 40.24 -108.96 6062 Commissioned 2004-09-07 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1108
94084 US ND Northgate 5 ESE Des Lacs National Wildlife Refuge (HB-4 Site) 48.96 -102.17 1842 Commissioned 2007-01-25 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1235
94085 US SD Pierre 24 S Fort Pierre National Grassland (Chester West) 44.01 -100.35 2124 Commissioned 2007-01-25 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1236
94088 US WY Sundance 8 NNW Bear Lodge Ranger Dist, Black Hills NF (Massengale Flats Site) 44.51 -104.43 5792 Commissioned 2007-09-27 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1487
94092 US CO Akron A 4 E USDA Central Great Plains Research Station 40.15 -103.14 4542 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1657
94094 US CO Meeker 15 W Rio Blanco Lake State Wildlife Area 40.08 -108.19 5761 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1712
94096 US UT Vernal 23 SSE FWS, Ouray National Wildlife Refuge 40.13 -109.64 4674 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1778
94097 US UT Grantsville 12 WNW BLM, Skull Valley (Muskrat Fire Station) 40.63 -112.67 4578 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1777
94098 US UT Manila 18 ESE FS, Ashley National Forest (Dutch John) 40.92 -109.38 6536 Non-comissioned 2014-05-31 20:00:00.0 Closed USRCRN 1786
94644 US ME Old Town 2 W University of Maine (Rogers Farm Site) 44.92 -68.7 127 Commissioned 2004-01-11 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1034
94645 US ME Limestone 4 NNW Aroostook National Wildlife Ref. (Fire Training Area) 46.96 -67.88 737 Commissioned 2004-01-11 19:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1035
94995 US NE Lincoln 8 ENE University of Nebraska (Prairie Pines Site) 40.84 -96.56 1189 Commissioned 2004-01-11 19:00:00.0 Operational 94996 USCRN 1004
94996 US NE Lincoln 11 SW Audubon Society (Spring Creek Prairie Site) 40.69 -96.85 1372 Commissioned 2004-01-11 19:00:00.0 Operational 94995 USCRN 1003
96404 US AK Tok 70 SE FWS, Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge (Seaton Roadhouse site) 62.73 -141.2 2000 Commissioned 2012-09-23 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1779
96405 US AK Cordova 14 ESE Eyak Corporation, Cordova 60.47 -145.35 83 Commissioned 2018-09-17 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1798
96406 US AK Ruby 44 ESE FWS, Nowitna National Wildlife Refuge (Lake Site) 64.5 -154.12 259 Commissioned 2015-09-28 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1792
96407 US AK Selawik 28 E FWS, Selawik National Wildlife Refuge (Cabin Site) 66.56 -159 22 Commissioned 2016-09-06 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1795
96408 US AK Denali 27 N NPS, Denali National Park (Wonder Lake Campground Site) 63.45 -150.87 2225 Commissioned 2016-09-06 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1794
96409 US AK Toolik Lake 5 ENE BLM, Toolik Field Station 68.64 -149.39 2461 Commissioned 2018-09-17 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 1799
NA US VA Sterling 0 N Sterling HCN 38.97 -77.48 287 Test-site 2008-02-19 19:00:00.0 Closed USCRN 1305
UN US AK Denali 27 N NPS, Denali National Park (Wonder Lake Campground Site) 63.45 -150.87 2225 Test-site 2016-09-06 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 7794
UN US AK Selawik 28 E FWS, Selawik National Wildlife Refuge (Cabin Site) 66.56 -159 22 Test-site 2016-09-06 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 7795
UN US AK Glennallen 64 N BLM, Paxson Airport 63.02 -145.5 2669 Test-site 2014-07-20 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 7790
UN US AK Ruby 44 ESE FWS, Nowitna National Wildlife Refuge (Lake Site) 64.5 -154.12 259 Test-site 2015-09-28 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 7792
UN US AK Ivotuk 1 NNE Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, Ivotuk Airstrip 68.48 -155.75 1909 Test-site 2015-09-28 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 7791
UN US AK Deadhorse 3 S AK Department of Natural Resources, Haul Road) 70.16 -148.46 30 Test-site 2015-09-28 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 7793
UN US AK Aleknagik 1 NNE City of Aleknagik, Aleknagik Airport 59.28 -158.61 80 Test-site 2020-10-12 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 7801
UN US AK Toolik Lake 5 ENE BLM, Toolik Field Station 68.64 -149.39 2461 Test-site 2018-09-17 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 7799
UN US AK Cordova 14 ESE Eyak Corporation, Cordova 60.47 -145.35 83 Test-site 2018-09-17 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 7798
UN US TN Oakridge 0 N ATDD test site 36 -84.24 UN Test-site Non-operational USCRN 1147
UN US AK Tok 70 SE FWS, Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge (Seaton Roadhouse site) 62.73 -141.2 2000 Test-site 2012-09-23 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 7779
UN US AK Bethel 87 WNW FWS, Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge (South Volcano Lake) 61.34 -164.07 153 Test-site 2019-09-22 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 7800
UN US AK Gustavus 2 NE The Nature Conservancy, Gustavus Forelands Preserve 58.42 -135.69 20 Test-site 2013-07-24 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 7780
UN US AK King Salmon 42 SE NPS, Katmai National Park (Contact Creek) 58.2 -155.92 661 Test-site 2013-07-24 20:00:00.0 Operational USCRN 7788
Was it really, REALLY necessary to pollute the blog with that stuff, RLH?
No one is interested in looking at that, except yourself.
Why didn’t you at least upload this thoroughly uninteresting info, thus reducing your nonsensical flood to a simple link, like I did?
I know which USCRN stations are active, RLH.
No one here needs your manic urge to continuously teach others.
You’re acting just like Robertson, who ruthlessly fills this blog with hundreds of lines that say nothing but his self-centered views.
Try
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1znsyrbD7q1jWSl1ZklEyUXZ0slnA_3EA/view
for a pdf of the stations you listed with accurate daily data
Still not prepared to acknowledge that you shouldn’t use already rounded data in any subsequent calculations without accepting that what you do will contain ‘errors’ are you?
“I know which USCRN stations are active, RLH.”
But continue to use stations that are closed or experimental regardless.
P.S. As Latitude is a spherical calculation, shouldn’t your ‘fit’ be something other than a straight line?
Now that Roe is dead, when can we get a rehearing on the ruling that co2 is a pollutant?
There is more to the world than one state in the USA.
rlh…”There is more to the world than one state in the USA”.
***
Whatever you do, don’t stand up in a bar in Amarillo, Texas and shout that out.
In the rest of the world it will pass without notice.
My understanding is that Roe vs. Wade is still the law. SCOTUS just refused to accept the first objection to the new law from Texas, claiming that the lower courts have not ruled on it yet. Just one round in a long, pointless game. SCOTUS may yet agree that the law is unconstitutional.
The statement concluded:
” Now that Roe is dead… ”
Aha.
It seems to me you think like the brazen Trumpie boy, who was 100% sure that when he’d have brought Amy Coney Barrett into SCOTUS, she would do anything possible to legitimize his lazy illegal intentions.
He was at least 110 % wrong.
Thus wait a little, Darwin Wyatt, before claiming such nonsense.
And the amazing hypocricy here is that the very same people who say things like
“There is nothing more important than your unfettered liberty. Without it you are nothing more than a slave.”
in reference to mask mandates and public health measures
will be all-in for the government taking over control of a woman’s body, no matter how some man’s sperm happens to get into it.
Liberty is apparently only for men.
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
https://www.science.org/news/2021/07/un-climate-panel-confronts-implausibly-hot-forecasts-future-warming
The globe has indeed been cooling for the last few years or so. Get over it.
Bob was here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-805906
How is 5 years worth of monthly data only 2 data points?
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2016
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2016/trend
Idiot.
3 out of 4:
The Only Trick of Roy’s One-Trick Pony (v.3):
0. Almost suggest something relevant;
1. When challenged, brag;
2. When pinned down, Just Ask Questions;
3. When countered, try to insult
Well done!
1.
Someone else put it better than I could.
“The reality is that any measure of standard error and associated confidence limits is a function of the assumed statistical model. As such it is an assumption-based estimate. In contrast, the monthly and 13-month moving averages are point measures that are a function of what was actually measured. There will be errors in those measurements but no statistical technique can tell you what those errors might be. In fact, all of the statistical measures assume the measurements themselves were made without error. In contrast, the statistical analysis is all about trying to estimate the extent to which the natural and real variability in the system over time as measured is fundamental to the real system or simply due to random chance.”
“In fact, all of the statistical measures assume the measurements themselves were made without error.”
Hmmm. Big hmmm.
Nate: What I was meaning was put much more elegantly by others.
“The reality is that any measure of standard error and associated confidence limits is a function of the assumed statistical model. As such it is an assumption-based estimate. In contrast, the monthly and 13-month moving averages are point measures that are a function of what was actually measured. There will be errors in those measurements but no statistical technique can tell you what those errors might be. In fact, all of the statistical measures assume the measurements themselves were made without error. In contrast, the statistical analysis is all about trying to estimate the extent to which the natural and real variability in the system over time as measured is fundamental to the real system or simply due to random chance.”
Oops. Not intended to be posted here as it duplicates what was said above.
Hmmm away idiot.
You’re in my thread, dummy.
You have more than 170 comments so far.
There are 470 responses or so.
That’s 36% of the responses.
Is it because you still have not digested being spanked about the meaning of NULL?
3 value logic is beyond your ken. I know that is because you are an idiot.
“Youre in my thread”
You’re on Roy’s site.
You’re not Roy’s Hall Monitor, dummy.
> 3 value logic is beyond your ken
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-827751
Not only you’re 74 years old, Richard, but you’re a pretentious twat.
Willie Boy,
Richard is posting facts. You post propaganda.
Go start your own site then idiot.
“Previous approaches have treated various interpretations of null values”
There can be no ‘interpretation’ of things that are ‘unknown’.
Unless you claim to be a physic I suppose.
Psychic. Damn autocorrect.
> There can be no “interpretation” of things that are “unknown”.
Is this some kind of joke, Richard?
NULL is only one possible result of an SQL search.
How *you* interpret that result is up to you.
Here’s a little puzzle for you:
How do you evaluate (p & non-p) in 3-valued logic?
“NULL is only one possible result of an SQL search.”
Wrong. A NULL is inserted in a field when nothing is know about the value at that point. i.e. It is and unknown value.
“SQL uses a three-valued logic: besides true and false, the result of logical expressions can also be unknown. SQLs three valued logic is a consequence of supporting null to mark absent data. If a null value affects the result of a logical expression, the result is neither true nor false but unknown.
The three-valued logic is an integral part of Core SQL and it is followed by pretty much every SQL database.”
“How do you evaluate (p & non-p) in 3-valued logic?”
By adding in ‘unknown’ to the 2 value set.
“NULL is equal to nothing, even NULL is not equal to NULL because each NULL could be different.”
> By adding in “unknown” to the 2 value set.
You’re already in a 3-value logic, dummy.
Please give me the result of p & non-p in a 3-value logic of your choice.
I’m sure you already know there are many, right?
> part of Core SQL
See what happens when an MS coder pretends to be a computer scientist.
An intriguing enigma:
“If the contents of a table are displayed through a database query tool such as SQL Server Management Studio the fields containing SQL NULL values will show the text “NULL”. However, this is just a visual indication, as those fields do not actually contain the text that is displayed.”
p, non-p & unknown
“However, this is just a visual indication, as those fields do not actually contain the text that is displayed.”
This is because the value of NULL is unknown.
p and non-p are known values. A very small subset of the universe about which most is unknown.
> p and non-p are known values
Nope.
Try again.
Are you saying that p and non-p are unknown. That’s interesting.
Variables can have many values, dummy.
“Three-valued logic has been in the SQL standard from the beginning. It is an integral and widely supported aspect of SQL.”
“Variables can have many values”, one of which is unknown.
It’s a simple puzzle, dummy.
Allow me to help. Find the three-value logic that SQL implements. Build the truth table.
You should realize why I gave you that puzzle to solve.
What’s a sentinel value, btw?
And A & B
If any input is false then false, otherwise if any input is unknown, unknown.
Or A | B
If any input is true then true, otherwise if any input is unknown, unknown.
Not A
True is False.
False is True.
Unknown is Unknown.
All the other logic can be built from the above.
“In computer programming, a sentinel value (also referred to as a flag value, trip value, rogue value, signal value, or dummy data) is a special value in the context of an algorithm which uses its presence as a condition of termination”
Nothing to do with logic per se.
That’s better, dummy.
Now try A & NOT A.
> Nothing to do with logic
Something to do with NULL, dummy.
An NULL cannot be used as a sentinal value as its value is unknown.
And A & B
If any input is false then false, otherwise if any input is unknown, unknown, otherwise true.
Or A | B
If any input is true then true, otherwise if any input is unknown, unknown, otherwise.
Not A
True is False.
False is True.
Unknown is Unknown.
All the other logic can be built from the above.
A & Not A
A = true, A & Not A is unknown
A = false, A & Not A is unknown
> And A & B
No, dummy: A & NOT A.
And please, not “And” and “&”.
Try again.
> An NULL cannot be used as a sentinal value
“From the perspective of databases and data warehousing, reserving certain values to mark a null (or NA) is widely considered unacceptable. NaN is valid data, as is INT32_MIN and other common values used as sentinels.
Most SQL systems store the null-ness of value using an extra bit or byte. File formats like Apache Avro and Parquet have a separate null/not-null encoding.”
A & Not A (Can also be written as A and Not A, A AND Not A, A && Not A and a few others)
A = true, A & Not A is unknown
A = false, A & Not A is unknown
A = Unknown, A & Not A is unknown
Physical representation of True, False and NULL (or their equivalents) is not the consideration, the fact that the logic is 3 valued is.
> A = true, A & Not A is unknown
If A is true, Not A is false, so A and Not A is false.
If A is false, Not A is true, so A and Not is false.
Here’s your last chance:
Try with A = NULL.
The value of NULL is Unknown so I have covered that already.
Anything that includes an Unknown and is not already decided (like a false to any input to an AND or a true to any input to an OR) will always come out as Unknown.
A is Unknown.
Not A is Unknown.
A & Not A is Unknown.
The truth table for A & NON-A is False, False, and NULL, dummy.
Which means that for your three-valued logic saying one thing and its opposite isn’t always false. Same for a simple statement like A & A. So your pet logic has no tautology or contradiction.
Some powerful logic you got there. There are three-valued logics in which there are. I’ll let you find them.
NULL represents an Unknown value. Idiot.
NULL is not equal to NULL (i.e. the 2 things cannot be compared directly) which kinda throws your description into a problem.
What is more important than climate change?
Just about everything.
Can my lawn grow better, more important.
Is China emitting the most CO2 and creating the most pollution
turning China into waste dump, important.
Not really.
What is more important is the extraordinary popular delusion and the madness of the crowds that think climate change is a threat.
Its the same mob mentality that is driving the completely irrational anti-science approach to COVID.
Rights and Freedoms are being eroded by COVID response and there is a large following (extinction rebellion for example) that thinks we should be locking down society because of CO2 emissions too. Your ration of energy would be determined by how important you are to society.
There is nothing more important than your unfettered liberty. Without it you are nothing more than a slave.
ken…”There is nothing more important than your unfettered liberty. Without it you are nothing more than a slave”.
***
You’re right. I wonder what has become of the spirit and courage of US, Canadian, UK and other Allies who stood up to Hitler in WWII? Why is everyone so suddenly willing to accept lame excuses for lockdowns?
You can bet that dossiers are being compiled on us for daring to post such material.
Well being a slave depends upon a lot on the master, dems are lousy masters.
Think about the poor woman that worked for Ms Clinton.
And Dem governor throwing phones at people, the list is endless.
Generally one should avoid working for any boss, but particularly, a boss who is a batshit crazy totalitarian Lefty, who can not even manage to live in their own skin, and are quite angry if someone is sneaking around trying to have a good time- on their dime!!
Dementors are the Dems.
So the question which ended Rome.
Slaves. Or Christian, or Both.
Slaves are also, about corrosive moral effect they have.
You might end up like Clinton.
A whole society of full of Clintons, yuck!
Cuomo or Clinton which is worse?
I don’t really want to find out.
And Biden will have his dog bite you.
Regarding this:
— gbaikie says:
–September 4, 2021 at 12:16 AM
Well being a slave depends upon a lot on the master, dems are lousy masters.–
One can roughly say civilization which has slavery, could be civilization which had worse problems than slavery. Or there was benefits to having slavery which include it being “good” for the slaves themselves. Or the big problem with a society with slaves, is it can seriously worsen. So the Egyptian civilization was not “bad” because it had slavery, but it worsened “probably” as one reasons. One has general story of Jews, who were slaves, who rebelled, and left the “comforts” of one of highest civilization currently in existence, to travel thru deserts to the “promised land” or they went “back” land they used live in- going to their “homeland”- the land given to them by God, which they left.
They were not dragged away, rather they chose to go to Egypt, though due to war in general, some were also captured and brought and sold in Egypt – as were all kinds “of peoples”.
One can also call apprenticeship is similar, children were given {note that children were givable} so that children could learn a useful “trade”.
Main difference is a matter of the Laws regarding [or “lacks rights of apprentices”]. And human rights- is not a new thing- making it a central part of a government is not even “new”- or founders knew history, they stole ideas from history- mainly Greek, and Romans “stole” from Ancient Greeks and was more books were Roman- church monks were quite busy copying things. Though of course they were mainly, Brits- Magna Carta and the then current happenings of British parliament. {though not like they were ignoring the superpower France or rest of Europe}
Of course history “warned” about problems with having slaves- or the lack of rights. The nobleness of farmers the big thing with the ancient Rome, as was Spartacus, Greek {A slave system, in which slaves could “advance” to become “leadership”- thought one could see it as sort of like to the Game of Thrones- though these weren’t farmers- I guess some kind weird cross dressing with the famous Chinese bureaucrats. And all mixed in with Lord of Rings and Porn – so a global hit}.
So currently, have human trafficking. One rightly say this
is evil, but the fundamental “problem” is our laws- which promotes or enables it.
Very similar or same thing as our “War on Drugs” “effort” {or madness] with it’s laws.
“There is nothing more important than your unfettered liberty. ”
Nonsense My liberty to wave my fists around ends where your nose begins.
Further than that if you want to avoid a charge of intimidation.
When there are people taking your rights away the liberty to wave your fist around ends at the back of their skull.
USA 2nd Amendment rights are quite clear about that.
USA 2nd Amendment rights only apply in the USA.
Bill of Rights 1689 too.
There is natural law to defend against oppressive government.
‘defend against an oppressive govt’. Does that mean Jan 6 style ‘defense’?
“Bill of Rights 1689 (UK)
The Bill of Rights 1689 is an iron gall ink manuscript on parchment. It is an original Act of the English Parliament and has been in the custody of Parliament since its creation. The Bill firmly established the principles of frequent parliaments, free elections and freedom of speech within Parliament known today as Parliamentary Privilege. It also includes no right of taxation without Parliament’s agreement, freedom from government interference, the right of petition and just treatment of people by courts. The main principles of the Bill of Rights are still in force today – particularly being cited in legal cases and was used as a model for the US Bill of Rights 1789. Its influence can also be seen in other documents establishing the rights of humans, such as the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.”
“Rights and Freedoms are being eroded by COVID response and there”
I know mask mandates are like another Holocaust!
Go back to a time and place when rights and freedoms were guaranteed,Ken, before children were oppressed with polio vaccines and were free to get polio..
Maybe try the jim crow deep south before 1970, the ww2 internment camps, or the 1918 Spanish flu pandemic.
–Ken says:
September 3, 2021 at 9:58 PM
What is more important is the extraordinary popular delusion and the madness of the crowds that think climate change is a threat.–
Well, this has always happened.
This is the default condition.
One could claim that people have wanted to solve this problem, but there no evidence they have been successful, and one could make a case that all such efforts have worsen it.
But it seem it’s hard measure this in order say with any kind of certainty whether it’s got much worse or better.
I think people in general use manage to get more “real news” and there used to be more “accountable” for the lying- and sometimes involved tar and feathers- and one can talk about endless clutter and noise of Ads. Very hard to imagine this is helping anything.
And then, we could talk education in general- which is bad, hard imagine it getting much worse.
This is measurable, have long got these sorry results.
We have test results and etc.
binny…”I perfectly recall a paper by Christy and al. dated 2006, where they explained to have isolated 31 radiosondes (most of them in the US, and a few ‘US controlled’ outside, on some Pacific islands”.
***
What does it matter where a radiosonde in located, do you think a radiosonde in the atmosphere over the US reads differently than a radiosonde elsewhere?
UAH is comparing the radiosonde correlation between altitude and temperature. That’s a global constant as is witnessed by the lapse rate. If the sat data matches 31 radiosondes that’s good enough.
I have read Swannie’s whines on this as well. He is misinformed as to the operation of satellite AMSU units just as he is misinformed about the 2nd law.
Robertson
Thanks for showing us all how dumb, brazen and ignorant you are.
You never read that paper, and thus don’t know anything about what I wrote.
” If the sat data matches 31 radiosondes that’s good enough. ”
Especially when they were carefully chosen, and then homogenized to fit the satellite data, huh?
You aren’t even able to detect circular reasoning.
As usual, you merely show off with stupid blah blah.
Gordo, Thanks for including me in your comment. If you can document errors in my comments about the AMSU, please do so. Of course, your other comment about my understanding of the 2nd Law is wrong as well, I’ve never said that it’s wrong. Net transfer of energy is always from a warmer source to (or thru) a colder sink.
willard…”For 2100, in a worst-case scenario, that would reduce a raw 5°C of projected warming over preindustrial levels to 4.2°C”.
***
Notice how the IPCC weenies now use the word ‘projected’? In the 3rd assessment they stated that future climate states cannot be predicted. That did not stop them using unvalidated climate models to predict idiotic scenarios as you have outlined.
They got away with it till expert reviewer Vincent Gray pointed out the obvious: unvalidated models cannot predict. The IPCC sheepishly changed ‘predict’ to ‘project’. This immediately puiqued the interest of Bob Droege, a good alarmist who loves sheep.
Now the propagandists are using unvalidated computer models to predict disaster from covid unless people give up their democratic rights, wear masks, practice social distancing, and in general, behave like sheeple. That word again, Bob will be by soon, he never misses a good sheep story.
puiqued??? Would that be piqued???
Gordo,
Not Vincent Gray again:
https://www.desmog.com/vincent-gray/
You really need new material.
>You really need new material.
Look in the mirror.
Here, Troglodyte:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-cycle/
Brand new!
willard…”Not Vincent Gray again:”
***
Desmogblog??? Get serious, propagandists funded by a convicted criminal.
A search of 22,000 academic journals shows that Gray has never been published in a peer-reviewed journal on the subject of climate change. Gray has published peer-reviewed scientific work on coal, his most recent article having been published 17 years ago.
They also say – follow the money!
You’re a tough customer, Gordo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vincent_R._Gray
Wikipedia is a good source of information for some thing, but it must be double checked because there is a lot of false or questionable information posted by people with an agenda.
Gordon,
Just tell me, within 10 orders of magnitude, how many possible climate states are there?
Therein may lie a clue as to why the IPCC said that.
“In the 3rd assessment they stated that future climate states cannot be predicted.”
You don’t understand what the IPCC said.
Be a responsible human being, mask up, get vaccinated, so we all can put this epidemic behind us.
Do your civic duty.
Nobody is trampling your democratic rights by asking that you be vaccinated and wear a mask in public areas.
Hey Gordon,
Why don’t you reply?
You know I don’t take any authority figures word on anything, I am anything but a sheep.
But I do think you are overdo for a shearing.
Ground state at minus infinity.
Geez, where did you come up with that?
You will swallow anything if it argues against AGW.
nate…”Both seem to get the conspiracy theorists working overtime”.
***
One thing I have noticed about you alarmists is how much you appeal to authority. A tiny fraction of 1% of any population world-wide dies from an unexplained contagion and governments world-wide use that as an excuse to lock down populations.
Rather than become informed about the need to lock down, you, like a good alarmist, gets in line, kneel down, and worship your authority figures.
No one with an objective mind could watch the video by Nick Hudson of https://www.pandata.org/team/ without being curious as to the validity of their data. You, on the other hand, write them off as conspiracy theorists without bothering to verify what they have to say.
I had already verified much of what Hudson had to say in Ken’s video and I did it by reading established virologists, scientists, and doctors.
There will always be gullible, naive people like you around and you will smugly support the status quo because you are scared to the point where you cannot think objectively.
Gordon Robertson
I watched Ken’s video and both are dishonest. You won’t accept hard-working honest researchers but every lunatic crackpot is infallible.
Your list of established experts is composed of very dishonest people. Most pushing their contrarian lies in order to promote products and make money. They are like the snake oil salesmen many got conned by. They get people, like you, to believe everyone is lying and misleading you (the establishment) but they are the lone truth tellers. Buy their miracle products (that are worthless). It is an old game.
Sorry old-timer you never learned much in your long life. You are the gullible naiver person who DOES NOT think objectively at all. You just look for any lunatic against the established views (like you do with Einstein even though his ideas have been experimentally verified many times by many people). You are the thoughtless follower being led around by any lunatic contrarian. You never evaluate what they say, but just repeat their nonsense over and over.
Interestingly the ‘snake oil’ sales are masks and vaccines.
The essential uselessness of masks is found throughout the preponderance of literature about masks.
Israel has the highest uptake of vaccine and there it is found to be not working as advertised.
> throughout the preponderance of literature about masks.
Citation needed.
Ken
I recommend you read this material. A lot of false news and distortions. This information will help you see through the bad actors out there.
https://www.wbaltv.com/article/fact-check-debunking-misinformation-about-face-masks/37306178
Ken
Information of the Covid status in Israel.
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/israel-vaccine-data-how-many-have-already-been-inoculated-for-covid-1.9626604
The conclusion is vaccines do work. They work by priming the immune system. They are not 100%. You lower the odds of severe illness with vaccines so they work as advertised.
More evidence (I really do not know what you are using as source material for you claims…in this case I agree with Willard, show the sources of the data behind your claims. I am thinking they are based upon dishonest people).
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/covid-coronavirus-vaccines-hospital-cases-rates-unvaccinated
If the charts are valid in this link, it is highly irrational to conclude that vaccines are not working.
2. Moon’s Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.moon
Surface temp..Tmin..Tmean..Tmax
Kelvin……..100.K…220.K…390.K
So = 1.361 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
Moon’s albedo: amoon = 0,11
Moon’s sidereal rotation period is 27,32 days. But Moon is Earth’s satellite, so the lunar day is 29,5 days
Moon does N = 1/29,5 rotations/per day
Moon is a rocky planet, Moon’s surface irradiation accepting factor Φmoon = 0,47
(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S* Φ*π*r²*(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
cp.moon = 0,19cal/gr oC, moon’s surface specific heat (moon’s surface is considered as a dry soil)
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – it is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Moon’s Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.moon:
Tmean.moon = [ Φ (1 – a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Tmean.moon = { 0,47 (1 – 0,11) 1.361 W/m² [150* (1/29,5)*0,19]¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ }¹∕ ⁴ =
Tmean.moon = ( 2.488.581.418,96 )¹∕ ⁴ = 223,35 K
Tmean.moon = 223,35 Κ
The newly calculated Moon’s Mean Surface Temperature differs only by 1,54% from that measured by satellites!
Tsat.mean.moon = 220 K, measured by satellites.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
As they say – as hard as you try, you cannot polish a turd.
DMT,
And yet, climate cranks keep attempting to present highly polished turds as gold, don’t they?
Have you seen the one about CO2 being the thermostat controlling the world’s temperature? How about Michael Mann printing up his own Nobel Prize certificate?
Some of these climate crackpots are so dumb that they don’t know the difference between reality and fantasy, let alone turds and gold. They take the turd every time, admiring its highly polished patina, and breathing in its aroma, passing it from hand to hand like a precious gem.
What a pack of bumbling buffoons!
Mike Flynn,
Masterminding Fart.
You can polish a turd, even admire it, but at the end of the day it is still a turd.
They’ve been polishing GHE for decades. They’ve worn thru the shine.
GLOBAL WARMING UPDATE!!
“Global warming is actually causing COLDER winters because its making the polar vortex stretch south into US, Europe and Central Asia, report finds.” – MIT.
The miracle of CO2 continues!
Silly Swenson.
Increasing CO2 is the cause.
Global warming is the effect.
Climate change is the consequences.
I realise that In your simplistic worldview temperatures should only increase,
In the complex reality temperatures can sometimes go down as well as up.
EM,
So “global warming” is actually “not global warming”, is that it?
Or does increased CO2 cause “something”, but you can’t really say what it is?
Maybe you could try to quantify the effect of CO2 on weather (as climate is the statistics of weather), but your brain would explode, wouldn’t it? Best shut your mouth. Better to let people think you are a climate crackpot, rather than open your mouth and prove it!
Carry on being an idiot.
Mike Flynn,
Mathematizing Mystic.
“Increasing CO2 is the cause.
Global warming is the effect.
Climate change is the consequences.”
I’m on board.
Increased CO2 is a cause of global (tropospheric) warming which has some predictable effects.
We should think about what those effects are.
A warming troposphere ( and a cooling stratosphere ) are direct effects of radiative forcing.
A maxima of Arctic warming follows INdirectly, because a warmer troposphere alone means increased advective warming of the Arctic, even if the amount of mass exchanged were constant. By the same means, perhaps increased polar precipitation is implied because of increased water vapor availability.
Other imagined effects, however, including most headline grabbing extreme events are not at all supported by observations or critical thought.
Global average temperature is not a term in the equations of motion. The dynamic range of motions is naturally very large anyway, which explains most variation. Further, the long list of tragic weather disasters of the past serve to remind the thinking that weather disasters occurred when global tropospheric temperatures were lower. There’s no rational basis for imagining that returning to such temperatures will reduce any disasters.
McGee,
“Other imagined effects”
Well the arctic now has less much sea ice coverage. The polar to equator T gradient has reduced.
The Hadley circulation which produces deserts has widened to higher latitudes.
Are you certain that weather patterns should remain unchanged in a warmer world?
Hi Nate.
Well the arctic now has less much sea ice coverage.
Well, yes – this coincides with Arctic warming.
The polar to equator T gradient has reduced.
So this is not so clear.
“The” gradient that coincides with jet streams is much smaller than the pole to equator. Such dynamics are in part determined by those very dynamics.
Further, while the pole-to-equator temperature gradient appears to have decreased at the surface, it is modeled to increase at the height of the jet streams, around 200 millibars.
Further still, all this is in the context of seasonal variation. Gradients and jet streams vary over the course of a year with the seasons. And the dynamic fluctuation within a given month is still quite large.
So, no, its not apparent that there are significant changes in this regard.
The Hadley circulation which produces deserts has widened to higher latitudes.
This is unfounded.
There is no such physical entity as a “Hadley cell”.
This is a model construct – a model which has grave errors.
There are, of course, maxima of subsidence in the subtropics, but they have seasonal maxima during the hemispheric winter which is completely contrary to the narrative of warming increasing subsidence.
Polar air masses at the surface migrate all the way to the equator. The differences become washed out with surface ocean modification, but it is the subsidence associated with these elongated polar high pressure areas that describes the sub-tropical subsidence and not some mythical “Hadley Cell”.
Are you certain that weather patterns should remain unchanged in a warmer world?
My confidence occurs for a reason.
That reason is that while some factors, such as global warming appear likely, the other factors governing climate,
namely insolation, earth orbit and rotation, the extent and alignment of the oceans and mountains, will remain relatively constant in the long term means. It is these constant factors that determine that there will be jet streams, the basins into which jet stream waves will prefer, the ITCZ, the transport of moisture, etc. etc.
It’s not that there are zero changes, but they don’t appear significant, particularly in the face of natural wave variations.
“some mythical ‘Hadley Cell’.”
Sounded authoritative up to this BS.
You list properties of the Hadley Cell that indeed exist, but because it also has variation, that makes it ‘mythical’?
Well can you cite anything that agrees with you, and gives you your confidence that nothing changes in a warmer world?
Nate,
can you show me a real Hadley cell?
Not a conceptual model cartoon, and
not the subsidence, but actual observation of the circulation?
If they exists, it should be easy.
If you can’t show me a real one, then I’m gonna say they don’t exist.
Polar air masses, especially over the ocean basins, routinely travel to the equator – and even cross.
This reality is in direct contrast to the closed “cell” diagrams which don’t allow for cross cell transport.
“not the subsidence”
Strong equatorial convection is a signature.
Subsidence in subtropical latitude bands with resulting persistent deserts is a signature.
The trade winds are another.
These are indicators of a global circulation pattern.
Does this average general circulation pattern not exist? Its a myth?
“don’t allow for cross cell transport”
Again, the General circulation is the average pattern.
Nate,
here’s a pretty good view, at least on 6 September 2021:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=65.81,-16.16,427
These are surface streamlines.
One can trace at least partial streamline all the way from Antarctica to the Bay of Bengal near India.
Also interesting:
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-105.03,-11.38,427
Streamlines from 50S west of Chile connect to the ITCZ at 15N west of Mexico.
You’ve inspired me to examine the cell conceptual models in the reanalysis data in a more formal way.
This will takes some time, but I’ll post the results here.
“General circulation is the average pattern.”
That’s probably a good distinction.
There’s no such physical entity as a “Hadley Cell” though statistical abstractions might occur.
The reason it’s a snare is that the real cells are more likely the polar high pressure air masses, which we CAN identify and ARE real physical entities. Over the oceans, unlike the misleading conceptual model of closed cells, polar high pressure systems can and do traverse from the poles to the equator. Actually they can cross the equator. This explains the ITCZ and the subtropical subsidence and even the statistics that people conceive of in these models.
“Theres no such physical entity as a Hadley Cell though statistical abstractions might occur.”
Not sure what that means. It is a pattern of mass circulation, as real as any other.
And it has consequences, as discussed.
Here’s a good reminder of the difference between statistical spatial and temporal means and reality.
Consider precipitation, especially in terms of the ocean basins:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precipitation#/media/File:Precipitation_longterm_mean.gif
Things can be different between annual-monthly-instantaneous.
You can say, gee look at the dry eastern ocean basins.
But at the same time, you have consider the rainy western ocean basins.
The dynamic convergence associated with individual air mass paths explain this much better than the ill-considered conceptual models.
Sure, what I see is consistent with the Gen Circulation pattern. The pressure bands follow the seasonal oscillation of maximum of insolation. This is a well known.
And?
“You can say, gee look at the dry eastern ocean basins.
But at the same time, you have consider the rainy western ocean basins.”
Agree. Isnt that just the trade winds carrying ocean vapor west to the East Coasts of continents?
McGee…”Increasing CO2 is the cause.
Global warming is the effect.
Climate change is the consequences.
Im on board”.
***
All that’s onboard is another butt-kissing alarmists regurgitating the pseudo-science of authority figures.
Where’s your scientific proof that CO2 has anything to do with anything? Not a shred of evidence anywhere related to the atmosphere.
No, I’ve run, and marginally understand radiative transfer models.
You may have missed the nuance.
Global warming can be real but exaggerated.
“We should think about what those effects are.”
Current GHG reduces direct thermal radiation to space by 342Wm-2.
Doubling the amount of CO2, a minor GHG, from 400 ppm to 800 ppm, a process that will take two centuries, will, according to Schwarzschild equations, further reduce direct thermal radiation to space by another 3 Wm-2.
I think the effect of doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere won’t have any measurable effect on climate.
You can wax poetic about ‘radiation forcing’ but if such forcings are not already apparent with 342Wm-2 of GHG effect then why would they become apparent with a further 3Wm-2?
See William Happer’s article ‘radiation transfer’ for details.
Ken,
Don’t neglect to consider the past radiative forcing increase.
While radiative effects have been understood for centuries, the work of Syukuro Manabe was very important.
Manabe made predictions based on his ( among the first ) general circulation models from the 60s and 70s.
Remember, the RAOB era began in 1958 when the record was too brief to analyze trends for those early models.
Three of those predictions ( 1:tropospheric warming, 2: stratospheric cooling, 3: Arctic maxima ) are borne out to lesser or greater degree by reanalysis, raobs, and MSU including UAH.
They are borne out for the RAOB era, for the MSU era, and for the twenty-first century so far.
I have analyzed these data sets that you may see here:
https://climateobs.substack.com/p/vertical-profiles-of-climate-change
So there is correlation of ‘global warming’ with radiative forcing. Correlation is not, of course, causation, but for the uncontrolled experiment called climate, this may be the best we can do.
‘Global warming’ being real doesn’t mean all the scare stories are real. ‘Climate change’ can be real, but exaggerated, which makes it a perfect political tool, because even though it may be benign for a century or more, politicians can still trot out imaginary disaster, or logically worse, apply confirmation bias of the masses toward ‘climate change’.
There are reasons to worry less about climate change
(https://www.amazon.com/dp/B09BCGLTVV)
342W/m2 No.
Where from?
The TOA emits 240 W/m2. The surface @ 288K on ave emits 390 W/m2. The difference is 150 W/m2. The GHE is 150 W/m2. Much of that is due to feedbacks.
The added 3 W/m2 does not include feedbacks.
Let’s look at the SSW in the middle of the previous winter. The highest spike is visible at the top of the stratosphere (0.1 hPA). As the graph shows, the temperature of the upper stratosphere was very low in December, and there was a spectacular drop in temperature in February. The low temperature at the top of the stratosphere is logical because of the strong decrease in UV radiation, so why such a sudden jump in temperature at the stratosphere-mesosphere boundary? The nature of the SSW is, in my opinion, completely unknown and occurs at altitudes where the influence of the troposphere is excluded.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/temperature/01mb9065.png
Sorry should be 1 hPa.
hey, ren…just saying hello.
LOL
The organ grinder saying hello to his monkey!
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
With 212 comments out of the 520 we can read as of now, Richard has 41% of the contribution so far.
Well done, Richard!
Will he be able to keep pace?
Stay tuned tomorrow!
Willard has 100% (or nearly) of the idiocy on here.
The Only Trick of Roy’s One-Trick Pony (v.4):
0. Almost suggest something relevant;
1. When challenged, brag;
2. When pinned down, Just Ask Questions;
3. When countered, try to insult
1.
“The billions of dollars spent by the fossil fuel industry on propaganda and its acceptance by know-nothing elements on the right caused incalculable damage. They might have followed Margaret Thatcher, who warned in 1989 of C02 admissions leading to climate change “more fundamental and more widespread than anything we have known”. The desire of business to protect profits and the vanity of politicians and pundits, who saw themselves as dissidents fighting the consensus rather than fanatics enabling destruction, helped to waste two decades of valuable time.
I put “denier” in quotes at the top of this piece because the enemies of science (and of us all) are endlessly malleable shapeshifters. Once they can no longer deny the existence of man-made global warming, they shift and keet on shifting so no one can ever pin them down. In this, they mirror the defenders of slavery 230 years ago, who created the modern world’s first corporate PR campaign and provided an example for all who have followed.
…
The comparison isn’t harsh. One day, the attack on climate science will be seen as shocking as the defence of human bondage. Indeed, that day should have long passed. They are overwhelmingly old men or, in the case of Lawson, a very old man. They grew up in a 20th century where the carbon economy was natural: the way the world was and would always be. Slavery was equally natural to the plantation owners and slave traders of Georgian Britain. It had always existed, everywhere on Earth”
Nick Cohen, The Guardian
Unimaginative leftist propaganda.
stephen…”Unimaginative leftist propaganda”.
***
The reason I urge people to be careful with the leftist propaganda bit is that Thatcher was an uber-right winger. So was Schwarzeneggar, from Nazi stock, when he was California governor, while implementing Draconian carbon emission regulation. He is now advising people to accept the covid fraud without complaint.
This is not about right wing/left wing, it is far more sinister. We now have factions, many of them right wingers, wanting to replace democracy with Chinese-style totalitarianism. They are the politically-correct, a minority who want to shove their myopic beliefs down everyone’s throats.
dmt…”They might have followed Margaret Thatcher, who warned in 1989 of C02 admissions leading to climate change…”
***
Margaret Thatcher was a liar and one of the most dangerous Prime Ministers the UK ever encountered wrt the working class and the poor.
Her warning was not geared toward a scientific understanding, it was created as a blatant lie to fool the idiots in the UN. Thatcher, on the advice of an advisor, was deliberately lying to the UN in an attempt to have the UN declare CO2 emissions, as related to coal, a danger to global warming. Her ultimate goal was to stifle the UK coal miners, a despicable act.
Thatcher had no evidence whatsoever and she managed to have John Houghton, a protege and climate modeler installed as the first co-chair of the IPCC. Since its inception, the IPCC has peddled propaganda from unvalidated climate models in lieu of hard science using the scientific method.
Artificial gravity station to 500 km by 400 km orbit at 28 degree inclination.
Falcon 9 launches it and falcon 9 dragon to bring crew to it.
The first crew going it, could spend about 2 weeks there, maybe as much as 1 month.
The first crew would not provide all information regarding how much artificial gravity is needed and it’s long term effects, it counts as adventure- if crew merely get into it.
It would take more the single trip to the station.
Though it’s not comparable to ISS. It’s 1/500th of the cost- and tax payers don’t need to pay for it.
And could it enable more successful Mars crew explorations.
Could be a better “testbed” as what some people say, lunar exploration could be for Mars.
{But NASA still need to explore the Moon to determine if has water}
The station is put on top of falcon 9 second stage and second stage doesn’t separate from it.
Falcon 9 second stage is 12 feet in diameter, as is station.
Falcon 9 second stage is 12 feet diameter and 41.33 feet tall and station adds 90 feet to equal 131.33 feet or about 40 meters in total length.
40 feet of bottom of station is a large tank of air.
Above the tank are the areas where crew could stay.
Above the 12 feet diameter part is 8 feet diameter and 7 feet tall, where crew could enter it.
And when crew enter it, there would be no air, and after shutting door, it would be pressurized.
When pressurized, the crew go inside the pressurized station which has 6 floors.
Dragon spacecraft is not going dock with/into the station, the crew would use spacesuits to get to it.
Once in station, they could then make it spin.
One could attach rope to the dragon which could make the station and the dragon spin.
It not designed or intended to spin faster than .4 gee. And don’t need very strong rope to do that with mass of dragon capsule.
Or could spin it without using dragon spacecraft.
This station empty mass is less than 10,000 kg [excluding mass of second stage- 4 tons] and a falcon 9 rocket
can launch more than 10,000 kg of payload to LEO.
Crew could spend a fair amount time, unpacking 5 ton of payload which was lifted with the station.
One could have tons of containers water stored in the solar flare shelter and crew could remove them to
put in other rooms have enough space in the shelter so crew could use the room.
Crew unpacks and sets up things, and maybe make it spin up to .2 gee- and de-spin it- so could live in it for week or two at say .2 gee. And then leave.
And the next crew could stay a couple months. Or next crew could bring up a lot payload up, do a lot of stuff- and maybe spend 6 months up there. A practical thing could be to install more solar panels- as station doesn’t start with much electrical power- so install new solar panels which would track the sun.
But what would be more fun, is refueling the attached second stage, and getting this station out of LEO.
[I didn’t really, want it in LEO, but to lift it with Falcon 9, LEO was only real option.]
If use Falcon Heavy, instead one could put it into higher orbit. But it’s harder to get crew to it.
So, one way to look at it, is it spends some time in LEO, until ready to have long crew stays in artificial gravity, and then you put into a 20,000 by 200,000 km orbit. With the falcon stage attached to station, if was fully refueled, it’s more than enough get to that orbit- or anywhere- if not full of a lot stuff.
rlh…”And A & B
If any input is false then false, otherwise if any input is unknown, unknown”.
***
Not trying to argue with you, just questioning the meaning of unknown.
In digital logic, the 1s and 0s are represented by voltages. In the older +5 volt systems, the 1 = 5 volts and 0 = 0 volts. However, there were ranges involved.
If a voltage was 0 to 0.8 volts it was considered a 0. Don’t recall the range for 5 volts but I seem to recall it extended down to 4.8 volts. So, the region from 0.8 volts to 4.8 volts was regarded as an unknown, or undefined region.
I worked a lot with Karnaugh maps and truth tables in digital electronics. The definition I remember for an AND logic gate was:
A B (A&B)
1 1 1
1 0 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
The AND gate to me works when both inputs are 1s, or +5 volts. Your representation strikes me as being better applied to a NAND gate.
It figured the formatting would get lost.
In 3 value logic terms the meaning of Unknown is just that, Unknown.
If you want to implement in a physical fashion then you could consider it to be around the threshold value between 1 and 0, where noise could make it either by chance.
There is no guarantee that one Unknown value could be compared to any other Unknown value and give the same answer again.
The combining of NULL/Unknown with True, False is as I have described.
3 Value logic
And A & B
If any input is false then false, otherwise if any input is unknown then unknown, otherwise true.
Or A | B
If any input is true then true, otherwise if any input is unknown then unknown, otherwise false.
Not A
True is False.
False is True.
Unknown is Unknown.
All the other logic requirements can be built from the above.
To go to one of the ‘impossible’ scenario’s which Willard thinks are so clever we also get
A & Not A
A = true, A & Not A is unknown
A = false, A & Not A is unknown
A = unknown, A & Not A is unknown
Most AIs and sensible humans would recognize this as being correct.
rlh…”A & Not A
A = true, A & Not A is unknown
A = false, A & Not A is unknown
A = unknown, A & Not A is unknown
Most AIs and sensible humans would recognize this as being correct.
***
If you have an AND gate with one input equals A and the same A applied through an inverter (not A) to the other AND gate input, then the A presented to the other AND gate input is ‘not A’.
Here’s your truth table for the AND gate
A…..(not A)…..(A & not A)
1…..0……….0
0…..1……….0
There are only two entries because you only have one data stream comprised of 1s and 0s.
Every time you present a 1 at the A input the output is 0.
Every time you present a 0 at the A input the output is 0.
Don’t see any value in the circuit but it works. If you had a stream of 1s and 0s applied to the A input and you just wanted to count the bits without using circuitry to differentiate a 1 from a 0, you could run the 0 output into a counter. I think there are much better ways of doing that but the input A & (not A) would work on an AND gate.
If you supply an AND gate with both 1 (A) and 0 (NOT A) or 0 (A) and 1 (NOT A) at the same time then the answer will always be 0. See above about the answer being 0 (false) if either of the 2 inputs is false.
What Willard was talking about is an apparent conundrum which could result in either/both true or false on the output. This is easily solved by stating the output is Unknown instead.
Hence the AI comment.
> Most AIs and sensible humans would recognize this as being correct.
That’s just dumb, Gordo:
When P is false, Not-P is true and their conjunction is false – a conjunct is only true when both propositions are true.
rlh…”Most AIs and sensible humans would recognize this as being correct”.
***
What I am posting here is straight out of digital electronics theory as taught in engineering classes at university. I have applied this theory in practice and it is the same theory used in AI.
Again, I am not trying to debate your point about the logic, which I think is correct. It’s just not the way logic is presented in digital electronics. There is no such thing as an unknown input in DE, only an undefined input if the input voltage is out of bounds.
If I recall correctly, in some Karnaugh map applications and in some truth tables, they flag certain input combinations as illegal, for want of a better word. That seemed to apply with more complex gate structures using different logic gates like AND, OR, NOR, NAND, XOR, etc.
For example, if you have a flip-flop circuit that contains different combinations of logic gates, certain inputs to the entire circuit are not allowed since they lead to instability.
BTW…in digital electrons, most chip based applications use NAND and NOR because it’s easier to implement them on a silicon chip.
I know.
“There is no such thing as an unknown input in DE, only an undefined input if the input voltage is out of bounds.”
In that case undefined equals Unknown.
N(ot)AND and N(ot)OR are just combinations of the above describe logic.
The point was originally that 2 value logic has serious limitations and possible conundrums. 3 value logic has neither.
> N(ot)AND and N(ot)OR are just combinations of the above describe logic.
It’s the other way around, dummy.
3 valued logic where the 3 values are true, false and unknown.
And
If any input is false then false, otherwise if any input is unknown then unknown, otherwise true.
Or
If any input is true then true, otherwise if any input is unknown then unknown, otherwise false.
Not
True is False.
False is True.
Unknown is Unknown.
All the other logic requirements can be built from the above.
“Its the other way around”
There is not way round you are an idiot.
Boolean logics are a combination of NAND or NOR, dummy, not the other way around.
And you still have to own your:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-832027
Dr. Edwin X. Berry’s Preprint #3 revision has been accepted for publication by Atmosphere. If you care anything about science, read it. It is an outstanding paper. Also, please see the back and forth with Jerry Elwood in the comments section. It was a very educational back and forth. Jerry Elwood is no slouch, but Berry had the math and evidence on his side. He used IPCC’s own data to falsify their carbon cycle model. This by itself falsifies AGW theory. Game over.
https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/preprint3/#comment-97606
USCRN stations distributions versa Taverage-Tmean
By Latitude
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/latitude.jpg
By Solar
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/solar.jpg
By Min/Max range
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/min_max-range.png
By Relative Humidity
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/relative_humidity.jpg
You may notice the numerous outliers and wide spread of values in all of those treatments which means that none of them are the whole answer.
15 minutes
Posted on September 3, 2021 by curryja | 74 Comments
by Judith Curry
https://judithcurry.com/2021/09/03/15-minutes/#more-27827
“Slide 2 IPCC
The climate crisis can be summarized as:
Its warming
The warming is caused by us
Warming is dangerous
We need to urgently transition to renewable energy to stop the warming
Once we stop burning fossil fuels, sea level rise will stop and the weather won’t be so extreme”
Over thousands of years, it is cooling.
Global climate was better thousands of years ago.
When a region the size of US was grassland, and is now, sand.
When there was grassland, it better than the sand.
When there was large areas forest in polar region, and then they become frozen stumps. The climate of forest rather than frozen stumps, is better.
Basic climate stuff, is cooling is a drier and colder world.
We live in a drier and colder world. And it could become drier and colder, and no one has given any plans of how we “might” stop the world from getting drier and colder.
Transition to burning more wood, making wind mills and solar farms is utter idiocy.
Using more nuclear energy is not idiotic. China plans on using more nuclear energy in to future.
China is currently on a path of Peak Coal. China does not have much coal and is using Coal at rate no country has ever done before. Discussing Peak Coal or Oil is retarded in regards to US- US has amounts and is not using these resources at the alarming rate that China is currently doing.
So, endless yack, about US, crickets about China.
But China is developing more Nuclear Energy, because that is really their only sane option. But it’s very likely they will not do this quick enough- despite China’s huge advantage of not having opposition to making nuclear energy- as all other countries in the world, have.
Using the resources in space, is better pathway, then using nuclear energy on the surface planet Earth. I not against nuclear energy, though might be oppose to it, if we had made more progress exploring Space.
NASA has had zero excuse for not exploring the Moon, decades ago.
NASA has had reasons to delay exploring Mars- and have endless promotion doing what they are not ready to do.
The ONLY reason we might be ready to explore Mars, pretty soon.
Is due to Elon Musk. What Musk did, was something NASA “could in theory had done”, 30 years ago.
Or the Starship is basically, a direction that Space Shuttle could have went. But Space Shuttle was made by a stupid bureaucracy in combination with a stupid Congress. It should be noted, that it’s
possible Starship will not work. And current US bureaucracy is a mixed bag, in terms helping or hindering. Or there has some changes which give hope {but it could be a false hope}. The biggest hope, is miles failures, and maybe this track record, could powerfully suggest, something should be done, differently. What different is attempts to “get it right” are being done. We getting a lot attempts and it’s not just SpaceX.
So, for next couple decades, I would favor nuclear energy until we find out the other options.
gbaikie…you missed the best part…
“So whats wrong with the crisis narrative? It is my assessment that
Weve vastly oversimplified both the problem and its solutions
The complexity and uncertainty surrounding climate change is being kept away from the public and policy debates.
Rapid reductions in emissions are technologically and politically infeasible on a global scale
And it overemphasizes the role of climate change in societal problems, distracting from real solutions to them.
norman…”I watched Kens video and both are dishonest. You wont accept hard-working honest researchers but every lunatic crackpot is infallible.
Your list of established experts is composed of very dishonest people. Most pushing their contrarian lies in order to promote products and make money”.
***
You are one of the most obtuse and myopic posters on Roy’s blog. Prove to me that any source I have posted is dishonest. I even quoted Dr. Luc Montagnier to you, with his admission that HIV is harmless to a healthy immune system yet you are inferring he is a liar too. I quoted Dr. Kary Mullis, who invented the PCR method used in the covid test claiming PCR cannot be used as a diagnostic tool as it is being used. You called him a liar too.
In Ken’s video link there is an excellent exposure of collected covid data. It’s available to everyone as it has been available to me and you. Yet you are incapable of reading the data and reaching an objective conclusion.
Here in British Columbia, Canada, we have a bit over 5 billion people and about 1800 people have died reportedly of covid. The statisticians don’t explain the conditions experienced by each person who died so we are forced to take their word for it, which I am loathe to do.
Anyway 18oo deaths out of 5 millions people is about 0.036%. You can’t even call that a pandemic yet the wannabee dictators running our province have engaged in lock downs, imposed mask and distancing regulations and are now targeting the unvaccinated through the introduction of vaccine passports.
In the video, Nick Hudson of pandadata.org showed comparisons between countries like the UK with a total lock down and countries like Sweden with no lock down. He compared North Dakota to South Dakota, where one is locked down and the other not. The statistics are virtually the same between locked down vs not locked down.
Why do people like you automatically follow what you are told by corrupt medical authorities? Fauci stated in March 2020 that mask were no good against a virus. The CD*C said the same. Later, he stated adamantly that a virus is never spread by people who show no symptoms. Yet, here we are with people being forced to wear masks and perfectly healthy, unvaccinated people being blamed for spreading covid.
This is how the Nazis began in Germany circa 1932. They did not force their way into power, they were voted in. German’s flocked to rallies to hear Hitler belching nonsense and they cheered him on. The Nazis got a foot hold because the majority of Germans believed them and supported them.
Now we have politicians belching similar nonsense about protecting the fragile and promoting front line workers as heroes. It’s their bleeping job for cripes sakes.
Today with covid, even though the data proves it is not a dangerous concern, the majority are hysterically supporting the status quo paradigm, even though it is full of holes.
The Nazis began throwing dissidents in concentration camps and no one objected. Of course, if they did, they were thrown in as well. The same thing is going on right now in North America the only difference being they have not built the concentration camps yet.
They have discussed something just as bad, they have talked about building centres to house people who have tested positive.
Are you effing crazy, Norman? Are you so stupid that you cannot look for yourself and see our right deteriorating before our eyes. In Germany, before anyone noticed, it was far too late.
Whether you are pro or con, you should be questioning such extreme measures and the ostracizing of scientists who speak out against the covid fraud. We have blanket censorship by the media and you don’t give a hoot.
Robertson
” I even quoted Dr. Luc Montagnier to you, with his admission that HIV is harmless to a healthy immune system yet you are inferring he is a liar too. ”
YOU, Robertson, are the absolute LIAR here.
Montagnier NEVER ‘admitted’ that HIV is harmless to a healthy immune system.
You disgusting liar repeat that lie since years on this blog. A lie you probably picked out of some contrarian blog.
When will you finally stop lying, Robertson??
Robertson
” The Nazis began throwing dissidents in concentration camps and no one objected. ”
And stop right now talking about Nazis on this blog: you don’t know anything about them, and it is disgusting to compare today’s German government with them.
Pfui Deibel, Robertson. Sie erzählen hier nur die allerletzte Scheiße.
>it is disgusting to compare today’s German government with them
?????Where is he doing that?
Is it disgusting to compare the French, Canadian, Chinese, or Australian governments with them?
Robertson is actually comparing the US gov with the Nazis. It’s a piss-poor undergraduate thing to say, but as he’s a senior I’m putting his ramblings down to early dementia.
An alert senior should know much better than to bandy comparisons with Nazi Germany.
No, Robertson is comparing the behavior of the Democrats with Nazis. It is a good comparison and always has been.
You’re just as demented as he is.
“as an online discussion grows longer (regardless of topic or scope), the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Adolf Hitler approaches 1.”
Godwin’s Law.
–Anyway 18oo deaths out of 5 millions people is about 0.036%. You cant even call that a pandemic yet the wannabee dictators running our province have engaged in lock downs, imposed mask and distancing regulations and are now targeting the unvaccinated through the introduction of vaccine passports.–
It’s definitely a pandemic.
Gordon please make effort.
It’s a pandemic that WHO failed at stopping, and encouraged it’s spread. Gordon you sounding as stupid and evil as WHO.
WHO claimed it wasn’t contagious. And you are essentially saying
the same thing. There certainly could be more lethal diseases, but air borne, as category, is bad stuff. It the kind of stuff that should have seriously alarmed, WHO.
At least you are not charged with the responsibility to stop global pandemics, and instead caused it to spread more than if WHO did not even exist as organization- an over paid organization to do this one simple task.
gbaikie…”Its definitely a pandemic.
Gordon please make effort.
Its a pandemic that WHO failed at stopping, and encouraged its spread. Gordon you sounding as stupid and evil as WHO.
WHO claimed it wasnt contagious. And you are essentially saying the same thing”.
***
I have made a huge effort, studying the science from experts and the math for hour after hour. I have been doing this since 1983. It is you and other like you who are operating out of sheer emotion while ignoring the facts.
0.035% deaths IS NOT A PANDEMIC!!!! As one doctor put it, it is endemic, meaning it’s like the seasonal flu. Corona viruses have been with us for decades yet the propagandists are touting this as a novel, or new virus. That’s a blatant lie. We are being lied to daily and most people swallow it because they lack the ability to read and comprehend.
Covid 2019 has not even been physically isolated. It was the same for HIV, as admitted by Dr. Luc Montagnier, who won a Nobel for discovering it. He admitted that he inferred the virus because he could not see it on an electron microscope.
Montagnier used retroviral theory that was not even 10 years old when he applied it, reasoning there must be an unseen, undetectable virus lurking somewhere. He REASONED that strands of RNA in a sample must be from HIV and that stupid theory has replaced a method that required a virus be seen on an electron microscope.
His theory was accepted carte blanche by the Reagan administration WITHOUT PEER REVIEW!!!
These days, Montagnier has changed the narrative. He now claims AIDS is caused by oxidative stress due to lifestyle and that HIV is a harmless virus to a healthy immune system. It’s the same for covid, it is harmful only to a tiny fraction of 1% of any population and no one has proof to the contrary.
The data proves what I am saying, I have no interest in hysterical, knee-jerk reactions based on hearsay evidence or unvalidated computer models.
We are living in times of scientific fascism where small groups of scientists create paradigms and enforce them using propaganda, censorship, and other fear tactics. Roy and John of UAH have encountered these fascists, who have actively tried to prevent them publishing papers. Dr. Peter Duesberg had his career ruined for speaking the truth about HIV/ADS. Barry Marshall, an Australian researchers was ostracized and ridiculed for claiming, correctly, that duodenal ulcers are caused by bacteria that can live in stomach acid.
A head doctor in Manitoba, Canada was recently fired, without reason, for questioning a proposed hospital plan to vaccinate children. Dr. Andrew Kaufman was fired for questioning covid theory.
Because HIV could not be seen or detected, a PCR test was developed based on the lame theory of Montagnier. The inventor of the PCR method, Kerry Mullis, told them the PCR method did not apply to isolating a virus or proving an infection because it could not amplify what could not be seen on an EM. The ignorant bastards are still using that method and no one can prove what the tests are measuring.
Guess what? Fauci was involved in the first HIV PCR test. Mullis called him a liar in public for claiming the test measured an HIV viral load and Fauci lacked the courage to sue him for obvious reasons. Mullis, the inventor of PCR, would have eaten him in court.
That was the position of Fauci in early 2020, that covid was harmless in general, until the idiots started listening to the other idiot Neil Ferguson, who put out a model claiming astronomical deaths if we did not immediately start practicing social distancing and wearing masks.
That’s what the hysteria is based on, an unvalidated computer model prediction.
That same idiot, using the same unvalidated models, made similar stupid claims going back to 2002 about SARS, bird flu, swine flu, and mad cow disease and he was not even close. He was so far off with his predictions that he might as well not have made them. The question is, why did politicians listen to the idiot this time?
Covid does not affect children…why??? Epidemiologist Johan Giesecke, an advisor to the WHO, claimed it’s usually the other way around, that children catch the flu and pass it to adults. Why do we suddenly have an inferred virus that does not affect children?
Why are 80% of deaths anywhere related only to seniors and those suffering poor health? Before we had the lock down here in Canada, the death rate was the same as it was afterward. Why is that out of everyone tested in Canada, only 3% tested positive? Why are 99.5% of people world wide simply not affected by covid?
BTW…the number for AIDS deaths were similar, a tiny fraction of 1%. Those deaths as revealed by the CD*C, year after year, showed that 90% of AIDS deaths were related to two high-risk groups: homosexual males and IV drug users. Yet, when Peter Duesberg, a distinguished virologist pointed out that truth, his career was ruined.
Come on man, use your brain and get off the hysterical emotions. No healthy person will be affected by covid and no person who shows no symptoms can spread it.
“0.035% deaths IS NOT A PANDEMIC!!!! As one doctor put it, it is endemic, meaning its like the seasonal flu. Corona viruses have been with us for decades yet the propagandists are touting this as a novel, or new virus. Thats a blatant lie. We are being lied to daily and most people swallow it because they lack the ability to read and comprehend.”
So, you must very pleased by the World Health Organization non actions. And thought Trump was racist because he blocked air travel from China. And I guess simply hated Europeans, as only explanation for later blocking their air travel.
So you want to call it endemic:
— (of a disease or condition) regularly found among particular people or in a certain area.
“complacency is endemic in industry today”–
A china endemic?
another:
: an organism that is restricted or peculiar to a locality or region : an endemic organism
I don’t think that what Trump meant by Chinese virus- he meant it seemed to originate from somewhere in China and not to mean it would stay in China or only effect Chinese people. Or why he wanted to stop all air travel.
Anyhow it seems by using the word, endemic you at least are suggesting it’s a disease [or non specific, condition, as in complacency].
More:
Synonyms & Antonyms for endemic
Synonyms: Adjective
aboriginal, autochthonous, born, domestic, indigenous, native
Antonyms: Adjective
nonindigenous, nonnative
Which suggests you think the idea of it created in lab as utter nonsense. As that would suggest the opposite of endemic.
I tend think there is good chance it started in Wuhan lab.
Also because object to novel, this also indicate you don’t think it was created.
So, is that generally in accordance with what meant to say?
gbaikie…”Which suggests you think the idea of it created in lab as utter nonsense. As that would suggest the opposite of endemic”.
***
The reason I think it was not created in a lab is that the researchers who announced the contagion admitted they had not isolated a virus. They claimed only an association between the contagion and a virus. In fact, the scientist credited with inventing the RNA-PCR test for covid, Christian Drosten, admitted the same thing, that he had not physically isolated a virus.
The Wuhan researchers took samples from an infected person’s lungs. As Dr. Andrew Kaufman pointed out, the residue they extracted from the lungs would be full of other contaminants, part of which likely contained the RNA they use to identify covid.
There is no proof that the RNA used to identify covid, HIV, etc., comes from a virus. In fact the RNA represent only a few strands of a complete genome. The fraudsters took those strands and worked on them in a computer model to piece together what they thought was the genome for covid.
Researchers argued for 50 years over the shape of the measles genome. Why?? If they had the virus they’d have the genome. As Stefan Lanka pointed out in his court case in which he convinced a German court that no scientific evidence exists to claim a measles virus, there is no identifiable measles virus. How then can they agree on the make up of a genome when they don’t have the measles virus?
Lot of fraudulent science happening today.
“The reason I think it was not created in a lab is that the researchers who announced the contagion admitted they had not isolated a virus. They claimed only an association between the contagion and a virus. In fact, the scientist credited with inventing the RNA-PCR test for covid, Christian Drosten, admitted the same thing, that he had not physically isolated a virus.”
I would ask where do you think it started.
But I am guessing that you think nothing started.
And if nothing started, that would be my main reason it could not
start in lab or anywhere.
And that nothing starting is also very strong argument for it not spreading around the world.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “I even quoted Dr. Luc Montagnier to you, with his admission that HIV is harmless to a healthy immune system yet you are inferring he is a liar too”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZXmMaMt43c
16:44 of this video. Montagnier says that a healthy immune system can kill off the virus in a few weeks. It does not mean it is harmless.
https://www.fredhutch.org/en/news/center-news/2015/12/HIV-super-survivors.html
Of those infected by HIV only 5% are able to stop the progress with their immune systems. The rest, without medical help, will progress to AIDS.
norman…”Of those infected by HIV only 5% are able to stop the progress with their immune systems. The rest, without medical help, will progress to AIDS”.
***
Only high risk groups like male homosexuals and IV drug users get AIDS and they account for over 90% of AIDS deaths. It was a travesty that the WHO blamed poor African suffering from malnutrition, contaminated water, and infectious diseases like malaria, called wasting syndrome, as harming themselves through sexual transmission of a virus.
If there was justice on this planet the WHO and their ilk would be in jail for being the criminals they are.
Gordon Robertson
https://www.3newsnow.com/news/coronavirus/flatwater-free-press-nebraska-doctors-despondent-as-preventable-covid-wave-slams-state?fbclid=IwAR3cU1CBI3cKu-C5mddk9alPQmd61D7Y5MjSOSae4DN7FcUneO-ANtrGRsg
A reminder:
“Nobel disease is a hypothesized affliction that results in certain Nobel Prize winners embracing strange or scientifically unsound ideas, usually later in life.[1][2] It has been argued that the effect results, in part, from a tendency for Nobel winners to feel empowered by the award to speak on topics outside their specific area of expertise[3][4] combined with a tendency for Nobel winners to be the kinds of scientists who think in unconventional ways.[5]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_disease
#4 on the list
“Luc Montagnier
Montagnier won the 2008 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. In 2009, in a non-peer-reviewed paper in a journal that he had founded, Montagnier claimed that solutions containing the DNA of pathogenic bacteria and viruses could emit low frequency radio waves that induce surrounding water molecules to become arranged into ‘nanostructures’. He suggested water could retain such properties even after the original solutions were massively diluted, to the point where the original DNA had effectively vanished, and that water could retain the ‘memory’ of substances with which it had been in contact — claims that place his work in close alignment with the pseudoscientific tenets of homeopathy. He further claimed that DNA sequence information could be ‘teleported’ to a separate test tube of purified water via these radio waves. He explained this in the framework of quantum field theory.[10][2][11] He has supported the scientifically discredited view that vaccines cause autism and has claimed that antibiotics are of therapeutic value in the treatment of autism.[6]”
RLH
Thanks for playing with a 2nd or 3rd order mean in your latitude distribution plot.
A mean which, by the way, doesn’t show anything else than a less dense CRN station population in Alaska, and therefore is not only useless but also misleading and distracting.
I still prefer the linear estimates explaining the spatial dependency of both ‘average minus mean’ and ‘average minus median’ data:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13fZbOg4aUS1zL-wQagK5R2YvPBCB3Yif/view
And… where the heck is your median corner?
The USCRN team is very certainly 100 % right when computing, for the spatial dependency, an amount of 21 %; but that does not change anything to my claim for the existence of this dependency as such.
*
Moreover, I’m still awaiting your complete files showing sorted station data averages for
– average minus mean temperature like in
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EAOU5Agp9wfctMbPtp7vEQ2Z9_xrlZBQ/view
and especially
– average minus median like in
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YeCrVkvcP2dw6uTl9y-89pdTlwn25BRb/view
Please avoid polluting the blog with hundreds of lines again, by uploading files and posting here merely a link to them, like I did.
*
In addition, I would still appreciate a graph from your side, plotting the difference averages for all stations from 2002 till now, that is similar to
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bROlI9vVCBE4ZFEfBhrcEyVaznDbrKtB/view
and confirms or contradicts what my graph shows, namely a temporal dependency of ‘average minus mean’ versus ‘average minus median’.
If namely that temporal dependency wouldn’t exist, the two differences would peak synchronously, instead of being displaced in time.
*
Above all: please do finally stop your endless, counterproductive, distracting critique concerning differences between own daily averages of CRN hourly data and their daily data.
Please concentrate instead on what matters, namely the comparison of the two differences mentioned above:
– hourly average minus hourly mean
– hourly average minus hourly median.
From where you obtain it doesn’t matter to me. The main thing is that you can finally cope with it.
Thanks in advance.
“Thanks for playing with a 2nd or 3rd order mean in your latitude distribution plot.”
The Tmean and Taverage come straight from the USCRN Daily Data.
rlh…”The Tmean and Taverage come straight from the USCRN Daily Data”.
***
If you take away Binny’s bean counting apparatus he’s lost. He fails to grasp that you can look at the raw data and derive meaning without leaping into convoluted statistics.
Heck, I can look at Roy’s graph and grasp the meaning visually without understanding advanced statistics theory. Mind you I took a course in advanced engineering probability and statistic but it was relegated to the bottom of my priorities due to the focus on math (calculus, linear algebra and vector calculus) and physics. I enjoy the application of statistics, or any math, but finding the time to get right into it would have required it being part of my work.
I recall sitting in the cafeteria before a P&S final and having a guy from my class, who was a math whiz, rush over to my table and sit down, He immediately started to thumb through his textbook, and unable to contain my curiosity, I asked what he was doing.
He replied that he was studying for the exam. Doh!!! Since he began at the beginning of the book, I asked if he was studying the entire course for the first time, from the beginning. He confirmed. Pissed me off that he went in and aced the exam whereas I barely scraped through.
He had such a strong background that he could attend lectures and take it all in while getting by on doing the problem sets. He was straight out of high school whereas I had been out of university, returning as a mature student. Many would argue with the mature bit.
Got bleary-eyed drunk before an astronomy exam and struggled mightily. Went up to ask the prof during the exam how kilometres there were in a parsec, a unit of radian measure. He just smiled and shook his head. I went to see him later and he asked what happened, my term work was good and I had passed all my midterms. When I told him, he laughed. Put me through based on my term work.
“Please concentrate instead on what matters, namely the comparison of the two differences mentioned above:
hourly average minus hourly mean
hourly average minus hourly median.”
Not interested. Stats books say, as you have noticed. that Tmedian is always the correct choice if the distribution is unknown in advance. At worst it is the same as Tmean if you happen to have a ‘normal’ distribution.
“In addition, I would still appreciate a graph from your side, plotting the difference averages for all stations from 2002 till now”
Did you see me say that as the distribution of the errors was nearly symmetrical with just a small bias towards the negative, any such averaging would be useless. It would just serve to hide the problem, not explain it.
“Above all: please do finally stop your endless, counterproductive, distracting critique concerning differences between own daily averages of CRN hourly data and their daily data.”
You mean you still won’t admit that your conclusions were wrong.
“Moreover, Im still awaiting your complete files showing sorted station data averages for”
I did that already but just in case you missed it (and to correct and error my csv to pdf convertor added)
https://1drv.ms/b/s!AtY8zZqh6Agxg8NbP6suKM8sCMUEZg
“I still prefer the linear estimates explaining the spatial dependency of both average minus mean and average minus median data:”
So you think that a straight line is a good fit for spherical geometry. Explains a lot of things.
Here is a peer reviewed paper that corroborates what I have been asserting for years: That water vapor controls the climate and CO2 has no significant influence. The sun matters because it provides the energy to drive the water vapor into the atmosphere http://thelightfootinstitute.ca/imglib/Earth_temp_paper.pdf
Statements therein include:
“In other words, the non-condensing GHGs are passive and do not affect Earth’s temperature because they are always rendered ineffective by the much larger warming by water vapor.”
“The increase in temperature over the decades mid-1970s to 2011 was caused by an increase in water vapor and not by an increase in CO2.”
“Carbon dioxide and the other non-condensing greenhouse gases (GHGs) as in Figure 3 are small, passive, and have no effect on the Earth's temperature.”
A recent update of my work which focuses on the observation that WV controls climate because it has been increasing faster than possible from just planet warming is at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338805648_Water_vapor_vs_CO2_for_planet_warming_14
Your hypothesis would not conflict with Berry. However, it would conflict with Vournas’. What are your thoughts on his theory?
I am failing to see a theory anywhere.
The greenhouse effect theory is not a theory.
But general idea is Earth would be colder {33 C colder}
without greenhouse gases.
This is batshit crazy.
Though I politely call it a cargo cult.
The cargo cult was charming- and the greenhouse effect theory
is committee meeting. Which always, always, lacks any charm.
Committee meeting is where stupidest people can’t avoid it.
Infested with crackpots and brown nosers.
And thieves, idiotic thieves, but one keep in mind their are thieves. Bad, immoral, dumb, thieves. Like the D student, Al Gore.
Where is other theories?
I don’t have a theory. I just listen to people who are somewhat
reasonable. I care mothing about the topic. It’s merely a bit annoying. I was interested is idea of terraforming Mars.
I solved that problem, and I moved on.
The solution was to ignore everything ever said regarding the greenhouse effect theory. And terraforming Mars is infected with such nonsense.
Anyhow, what is known is the ocean average temperature controls global climate. It’s not really a theory. More of a fact.
The other fact is we are in an Icehouse global climate.
No mention of any of this obvious, in the greenhouse effect theory.
Greenhouse effect cultists, call O3 a greenhouse gas. That like saying Jesus was a Wall Street banker.
How much wrong does it, need?
Now, does CO2 have any warming effect. Warming effect means, causing a more uniform global temperature.
Earth in it’s Ice Age is not vaguely uniform in terms of it’s temperature. If it was uniform, it’s not an Ice Age.
It seems possible. But there seems a quite ways it’s does this and the obvious thing, is, we had increase in CO2 levels and no one knows how much or if the rising CO2 levels have increased the global average air temperature of 15 C.
But it’s claimed the more 90% of all global warming has warmed the entire ocean [by a tiny weenie amount} those that say this, know the temperature of entire ocean, matters. As I know it.
But I don’t see an extremely warm ocean of 5 C, attacking me with excessive hotness. And ocean average is 3.5 C [5 C ocean is end of world, terror for some people. And I would say it’s a big change- or hopeful sign of some warmth- but also doomed to cool again, but could take longer than some civilizations have lasted].
In terms of water vapor, most water vapor has always been in the tropics. Tropical zone is 80% ocean. What else is relevant?
IPCC’s carbon cycle model is a theory. Their theory is that natural carbon has remained at 280ppm in the atmosphere for several thousand years, and all the increase from 280ppm to 415ppm is human-caused. If this is falsified, then the whole GHE is caput. Berry has falsified it, by the way.
Berry work does not disprove GHE. GHE is caused by water vapor. WV increase of 1.49 percent per decade has been caused by irrigation increase. Warm water over an area 4 times the area of France.
Governor Newsom is in lead on stopping farmers from getting water, most the pack want to destroy, electrical first, and then attack the farmers. Newsom doing both, and letting all forests burn.
Vournas ignores GHE. If there is no GHE there can be no ghg. That is demonstrated to be wrong.
dan…”Here is a peer reviewed paper that corroborates what I have been asserting for years: That water vapor controls the climate and CO2 has no significant influence’.
***
I have no problem with your theory Dan, it’s just the nagging question of how WV, making up about 0.31% of the atmosphere, can produce so much heat.
The Ideal Gas Law makes it clear that is not possible. The basis of the IGL for a gas with relatively constant volume is that heat is produced based on the mass percent of the constituent gas. That’s based on Dalton’s Law of Partial Pressures wherein pressure is directly proportional to temperature with a constant volume.
Nitrogen and oxygen between them make up nearly 99% of the mass percent of atmospheric gases. It stands to reason that N2/O2 account for 99% of the heat.
Yes, I agree. Water vapor is more abundant than CO2, but both are in trace amounts and not enough to warm the atmosphere. Vournas’ theory trumps.
Clouds and their immediate vicinity say otherwise.
There are lots of clouds at the poles.
rlh…”Clouds and their immediate vicinity say otherwise”.
***
Prove it. Clouds are modeled as small lakes of water because they are comprised of larger droplets of water. There is no proof that these water droplets are affecting global warming.
For one, clouds are claimed to reflect solar energy, therefore it seems they won’t be absorbing much of it. Where do they get their heat? Clouds form due to condensation where heat is given off.
Clouds will be at a cooler temperatures than the surface hence incapable of absorbing radiation from the warmer surface.
Unfortunately, there is no comprehensive theory that demonstrates how clouds affect global warming.
Inside clouds there is a significant increase in relative humidity. To 100%.
That means that the presence of water vapor by definition.
“Clouds will be at a cooler temperatures than the surface hence incapable of absorbing radiation from the warmer surface.”
Huhh??
Magic these clouds it seems.
“Unfortunately, there is no comprehensive theory that demonstrates how clouds affect global warming.”
There is no comprehensive theory.
A clouds make them pee the pants.
Judith Curry has looked at clouds.
stephen…”Vournas theory trumps”.
***
Moral: Never argue with a wise Greek bearing gifts of scientific wisdom.
I thought the moral was never accept Greek gifts, Gordo.
Please advise.
No advice needed. Willard is an idiot.
GR,
WV molecules dont produce heat they slow the flow of energy from surface to TOA. More WV molecules means more energy is in the atmosphere at any time. That means the atmosphere is warmer.
http://thelightfootinstitute.ca/imglib/Earth_temp_paper.pdf
“Earths Temperature Versus the Sun, Water Vapor and CO2”
DOI Not Found
The “paper” is not in google scholar, either.
I doubt it has been peer-reviewed, and no proof that it has actually been submitted to a reputable journal.
See for yourself. This is the DOI given at the link:
10.29169/1927-5129.2021.17.05
Paste it into the DOI search engine:
https://www.doi.org/
I note that the DOI includes the date?? Highly unusual. So I then searched for the journal under some of the major science portals that rank journals. Of several checked, only one mentioned the journal, and it had 2 reviews (reputable journals get hundreds).
Looks like a vanity journal that publishes if you pay.
I went to the bother of checking it out, because the very first sentence in the abstract is utter BS.
“The IPCC report Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (AR5) has two opposing claims as causes for an increase in the Earths temperature in the decades leading up to 2011.”
Barry,
Your post is an example of disinformation. The key word ‘doi10.29169’ in GOOGLE produces the abstract of the paper with option to download it as a pdf. If you had looked where he said, you would have seen exactly what he said you would. It is what he used in his analysis:
From AR5, Physical Science Basis (RF = radiative forcing), Summary for policy makers
p.13 The total anthropogenic RF for 2011 relative to 1750 is 2.29 [1.13 to 3.33] W m−2 (see Figure SPM.5), a
p.42 The magnitude of the observed global change in tropospheric water vapour of about 3.5% in the past 40 years is consistent with the observed temperature change of about 0.5°C during the same period, and the relative humidity has stayed approximately constant.
It is NOT BS.
Some Journals, including Nature and AMS charge to publish. I didn’t find where SETpublisher charges.
No disinformation in my post. Everything I said was true.
I put exactly what you said in google – not a method I would undertake to assess the provenance of a supposed published paper!! – and got a bunch of abstracts, not one of which was the one you mentioned.
Here is the google search string I got following your instruction:
https://tinyurl.com/bxp8fe2x (this website doesn’t like some of the string, apparently, so it is shortened to a tinyurl)
Sure you’re not seeing it because your browser remembered the page you previously visited?
Anyway, the paper is nor listed in google scholar, nor is the doi listed in the DOI search engine. Anyone can check that fr themselves. I wonder if you bothered. Probably not or you would have said something about it, being an honest interlocutor willing to be candid in a frank discussion. Right?
What I said about the journal was true. You can look for yourself and see how many mentions it gets in the reputable master lists. Don’t forget to check the impact factor – if you can find it.
As for IPCC 2013. The Summary for Policymakers only has 29 pages. Yet the water vapour quote is from page 42???
So as usual with this shit, I google and find the quote you provided actually comes from the Technical Summary.
How did you not know this? Because you didn’t check the source.
(Just briefly here – fuck you. At least do some basic homework if you’re going to post and then defend this guff)
And what does the Technical Summary say on page 42?
The paragraph within which the quote you cited appears begins with this illuminating sentence.
“Because the saturation vapour pressure of air increases with temperature, it is expected that the amount of water
vapour in air will increase with a warming climate.”
IOW, warmer air temperatures increase the amount of water vapour, according to the IPCC, and “is consistent with” means that the increase in water vapour is consistent with the amount of temperature change.
The authors of the so-called paper got cause and effect the wrong way around. Either they are incredibly stupid, because the text from the IPCC is VERY clear, or they are lying either to themselves or to their readers by saying the IPCC has “two opposing claims as causes for an increase in the Earth’s temperature.”
Yes, it IS BS.
If this submission typifies your dedication to facts and careful scholarship, then shove your “propaganda” where you imagine I think it should go.
Don’t waste people’s time with this crap. Please. It takes you a few seconds to post bull. It takes honest people more time to unlace it (luckily not too long this time). I’m not wasting any more on this.
Should have said “disinformation” where I said “propaganda.”
(At least one of us will correct the record)
Barry,
I tried a GOOGLE search for doi10.29169 from a cold boot and got nothing useful, probably same as you got. I know GOOGLE censors stuff they disagree with so I tried searching on Duckduckgo and got nothing there either. So apparently you are right about my browser remembering. I did a GOOGLE search on the exact title and eventually led to the paper in Researchgate. The DOI or where it is published or impact factor are not important to me. I judge papers on their content not by how popular they are. Peer review and some journals can usually keep out the incompetent stuff but the shortfall is that they are likely to block anything that seriously challenges their perceptions.
You were looking in the wrong place for the verification of what you called “utter BS”
The correct place to look is the “Physical Science Basis” as I said. Apparently you didn’t do “some basic homework”
If you will look where you were told you will indeed find that yes the IPCC makes ”two opposing claims as causes for an increase in the earth’s temperature.” The two claims are 29 pages apart.
I hope your post doesn’t typify “your dedication to facts and careful scholarship . . .”
The only way to avoid ever making a mistake is to never do anything. I apparently got misled by my browser.
The WV increase trend of the numerical data reported by NASA/RSS is about 25% higher than calculated in GCMs. Because the GCMs don’t account for another source for WV, they must be using temperature increase alone. They cannot both be correct. Besides, the WV increases because of the saturation vapor pressure vs temperature for water. Temperature increase of the water can force more WV into unsaturated air. When the saturation vapor pressure is more than the partial pressure of WV in the atmosphere at surface level the WV increases (limited by saturation in the air). If the atmosphere gets warmer it takes more WV for saturation.
Dan, you seem to not know what you are talking about. I found the quote you provided in the Technical Summary, which is one section of the “Physical Science Basis” comprising 14 chapters, the SPM and other sections. It’s also referred to as WG1, or Working Group One.
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
Go and look for the quote – page 42 of the Technical Summary. You will see the paragraph in which it sits and my correct quote of the first sentence which explains that WV rises as a result of temperature rise, and that the paper you cited therefore baldly.misrepresents the IPCC.
Do the fucking homework you lazy ass
Stop being so demonstrably wrong. Stop posting misinformation.
Here’s the paragraph. I don’t trust you to check yourself.
“Observations of Water Cycle Change
Because the saturation vapour pressure of air increases with temperature, it is expected that the amount of water vapour in air will increase with a warming climate. Observations from surface stations, radiosondes, global positioning systems and satellite measurements indicate increases in tropospheric water vapour at large spatial scales (TFE.1, Figure 1). It is very likely that tropospheric specific humidity has increased since the 1970s. The magnitude of the observed global change in tropospheric water vapour of about 3.5% in the past 40 years is consistent with the observed temperature change of about 0.5C during the same period, and the relative humidity has stayed approximately constant. The water vapour change can be attributed to human influence with medium confidence.”
Do you think for one second that the quote you provided, that appears in the middle of this paragraph, indicates that global temperature has risen due to an increase in WV?
If so, you are as stupid – or deceitful – as the authors of the paper you cited.
Utter. B. S.
And I am truly done with this you lazy time-waster.
I wonder if you are always an arrogant asshole or only if you think someone has made a mistake. Perhaps you are putting on a show because you are afraid that you might be wrong.
Apparently you found the 49+ mb file at https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/03/WG1AR5_SummaryVolume_FINAL.pdf
On page 42 I see that you found the second quote and bolded it. The NASA/RSS data trend shows WV increase of 5% in 34 months so my guess is that they extracted the 3.5% in 4 years from one of the faulty GCM models.
The first quote doesn’t have the word ‘claim’ in it either. Both quotes are just observations of data. Apparently you got all tense because he used the word ‘claim’ instead of ‘observed’ or something.
Perhaps given your apparent bias, you failed to benefit from his work. The object of Lightfoot’s paper was to determine the contribution of each gas to planet warming. Using their observations he found that the main contributor to planet warming was WV increase and contributions from CO2 and other ghg were insignificant. In all your ranting, you never pointed out where that conclusion was wrong.
““The IPCC report Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis (AR5) has two opposing claims as causes for an increase in the Earths temperature in the decades leading up to 2011.”
THAT is what I quoted as BS. The first sentence of the abstract. That is what you are trying to defend. The IPCC paragraph that contains the quote that you cited to defend the position is clear: higher temps leads to more WV. Your authors reverse cause and effect when quoting the IPCC in this section.
Utter. B.S.
Enough.
ken…”Current GHG reduces direct thermal radiation to space by 342Wm-2″.
***
I agree with a lot of the stuff you are saying but we need to get on the same page re the science. For one, there is no such thing as thermal radiation. Heat cannot be transferred via radiation, the process is more complicated and it’s important to understand it.
Heat on a surface, like a mass, is converted to electromagnetic energy AND IS LOST in the conversion. In other words, the surface emitting the EM cools. The energy moving through space has nothing to do with heat and its properties are nothing like the properties of heat, which requires atoms in a mass.
EM is comprised of an electric field perpendicular to a magnetic field and it has a certain frequency. Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms and cannot exist without mass. Until EM comes in contact with a lower energy mass it can heat nothing and it carries no heat.
If the radiated EM contacts a surface that is cooler than the emitting surface, the EM will be absorbed, and that will raise the temperature of the target surface. That’s because electrons at a lower energy level are driven to a higher energy level when they absorb it. That increases their KE, which is heat.
Conversely, if the EM contacts a surface that is hotter than the emitting surface, the electrons in that surface will ignore the EM. If electrons are sitting at a higher energy level on a target, EM from a lower temperature emitter lacks the energy and/or frequency to drive the electrons any higher.
Heat is not transferred between objects by radiation, heat is lost in one object and gained in the second, however the gained heat is produced within the target. No heat moves through space.
Secondly, it is not true that GHGs reduce radiation to space by 342 W/m^2. At best, GHGs absorbed about 5% of emitted surface radiation, which is not heat. Remember, the heat was lost at the surface during conversion.
It’s dodgy science like this that allows alarmists to spread their propaganda. They make it up as they go along just as covid alarmists fabricate their propaganda while trying to ensure that skeptics are never heard.
It’s a form of scientific fascism.
“if the EM contacts a surface that is hotter than the emitting surface, the electrons in that surface will ignore the EM.”
So the energy is just lost? I think not.
RLH, Gordo’s been repeating his claim ever since I presented my Green Plate demos back in 2018. He still hasn’t come up with an explanation for the warming I observed in the Blue Plate. It’s part of his claim that “warming by back radiation” violates the 2nd Law. He may have been an electrical engineer, but he isn’t a Mechanical Engineer, where IR radiation shields are accepted practice.
swannie…”RLH, Gordos been repeating his claim ever since I presented my Green Plate demos back in 2018. He still hasnt come up with an explanation for the warming I observed in the Blue Plate…”
**
Swannie the comedian. I have explained it at least a dozen times.
The warming is a result of blocking the ability of a body to dissipate heat.
In your first experiment, you placed a surface closely over a heated surface. Before placing the 2nd surface, the heated body had reached an equilibrium with the atmosphere. When you inserted your 2nd unheated body, you blocked convection and radiation from the heated body, therefore its temperature rose.
In your second experiment in a vacuum, you recorded the temperature of a plate in place in the vacuum chamber. Then you raised a metal plate in front of it in close proximity, effectively blocking half the radiation from the stationary body. By blocking its ability to dissipate heat via radiation you caused its temperature to rise.
Gordo, My final “cookie sheet” demonstration added a fan to promote convection from the heated plate. The difference between the high IR transmission food wrap and the metal cookie sheet was due to the difference in IR transmission of the two materials. The same was true for the Green Plate demo, where convection was effectively eliminated, when the Green plate was placed to intercept the IR from the Blue one, causing back radiation from Green to Blue, the Blue then warmed. There’s no “blocking” of the emissions from the Blue, that’s your own delusional excuse.
Hughes debunked you.
where tho
Search for "Geraint Hughes Green Plate Effect"
Thanks:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/12/cmip5-model-atmospheric-warming-1979-2018-some-comparisons-to-observations/#comment-417216
Since Wilhelm referred to your favorite content farm, he can only be right!
Ah, no substantive response. Understood. Just Willard being Willard.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo. Your handwaving lacked substance. My response was more than commensurate.
I can add more:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/08/20/a-consensus-of-convenience/#comment-2133555
Ah, no substantive response. Just Willard being Willard. Understood.
pups, You still don’t understand that Hughes’ experiment was hopelessly flawed.
Firstly, he used a mechanical vacuum gauge instead of a much better electronic one, so he could not support any claim regarding suppression of convection due to the vacuum within his tube. Second, he used an ordinary immersion digital thermometer to measure his heated (blue) plate, with the tip sitting in a larger diameter “well” with contact only at the tip of the device. Third, he didn’t measure the temperature of his green plate. Fourth, he had to open his device to add the green plate, then evacuate again, both times gathering data soon after turning on the vacuum pump. With my setup, it took quite a while for the system to reach equilibrium, at which point, I raised the Green plate and recorded the change in temperature of both plates.
No, pups, Hughes didn’t “debunk” my demonstration.
1) The gauge is adequate to ensure there was sufficient vacuum in the tube.
2) So?
3) The blue plate temperature is all that needed to be measured.
4) Even so, if the addition of the green plate caused the blue plate to be at a higher temperature, it would have been recorded. It was not.
Additionally, your setup featured a large weight which was moved in and out of view of the blue plate:
https://principia-scientific.com/greenplate-effect-it-doesnt-happen/#comment-28851
DREMT
On another thread by Geraint Hughes I questioned his set-up. He was not controlling the temperature of the surrounding glass. Glass is a very good IR emitter (average glass 0.92 in the IR bands) via this chart:
https://www.thermoworks.com/emissivity-table
His glass surrounding structure was hot. The IR the glass would emit to the plates would negate the very effect he was investigating. I suggested to him that he not use two plates (one heated and one not) but just vary the temperature of the surrounding glass and wee if it effected the temperature of the heated plate on the inside.
I am not sure why you have difficulty understanding radiant energy transfer.
EMR travels in all directions from an emitting surface. It is converted into thermal energy when it is absorbed by a surface.
If you have two objects they radiate EMR toward each other. Both will absorb and emit EMR.
It really is valid physics. Attempting to change it does not make a valid point. The complete deranged lunatize Joe Postma cannot grasp simple heat transfer physics. When you explain it to him he wigs out to the max. Do not be a Joseph Postma, an irrational cult leader.
Norman, Swanson had "surrounding glass" also.
DREMT
Yes Swanson did indeed have glass surrounding his plates. However E. Swanson showed the temperature as a variable in the experiment.
Geraint’s glass was at the temperature of the plates. It was hot glass. E. Swanson’s was not.
https://app.box.com/s/5wxidf87li5bo588q2xhcfxhtfy52oba
If the jar temperature is as warm as the heated plate it will emit as much IR as the plate and hence there would be not change in temperature for a non-heated plate in the glass. It would have reached the same temperature.
You can do a very simple experiment (even keep air in the container).
Put a heat lamp inside a jar with a plate above it. Monitor the plate temperature. Once it reaches a steady-state temperature start altering the temperture of the surrounding glass. Maybe cooling it with ice and then warming it with hot water. If changing the temperature of the outside glass alters the temperture of the heated plate it would prove to you Geraint Hughes is incorrect as are Postma and all the rest who do not actually understand real heat transfer.
"Geraint’s glass was at the temperature of the plates. It was hot glass."
How do you know?
pups, thanks for reminding us about all that fluff from Zoe Phin, including the canard about the mass of the lead filled weight. Those with any serious interest can read all the posts in the thread. While we’re at it, we are reminded that pups is just another incarntation of “Huffingman”, an previous obnoxious troll around here who apparently can’t post these days.
No, I am not who you think I am.
DREMT
I believe I asked him about the glass in his second experiment in the comments. When I looked at his second post it had no comments remaining. Not sure why all the comments were removed.
OK, Norman. I very much doubt he said that the glass of his apparatus was as hot as the heated plates, but never mind.
rlh…”if the EM contacts a surface that is hotter than the emitting surface, the electrons in that surface will ignore the EM.
So the energy is just lost? I think not”.
***
I did not say it was lost, I merely said it was ignored. We know the energy does not simply disappear.
Maybe I am giving too much credit to electrons in claiming they can ignore energy that has insufficient intensity or frequency to raise them to a higher energy levels. However, it is such science upon which the 2nd law of thermodynamics is based.
In quantum theory, the electron action is well documented both theoretically and mathematically. The energy level between electron orbitals is a potential difference measured in eV. The orbitals are defined so that the lowest level, ground state is at minus infinity. and zero is defined as the distance an electron must be to be outside the influence of the positive nucleus.
Since the PD increases from ground state outward, there must be a gain in kinetic energy between the same states. If a higher PD is PD2 and a lower PD is PD1, then the energy emitted by the electron in dropping between those states is PD2 – PD1 = hf = KE. So, a quantum of EM emitted in such a scenario is Planck quantum factor h times the frequency of the electron at the higher orbital level.
If the EM is incoming, the same applies. The energy of the EM required to raise the electron to a higher orbital energy level, hence a higher KE, must be at least PD2 – PD1 in the receiving atom. If that energy is coming from a cooler source it means that PD2 – PD1 is already too low to affect the electron, so it is ignored.
That is the orbital energy level, en masse, is a measure of the KE of the whole, hence the heat of the whole. That’s why when electrons emit EM en masse the body must cool. Or, if the electrons absorb EM en masse, the body must warm. Therefore PD2 -PD1 will always be lower in a cooler body than in a hotter body.
This upholds the 2nd law claim that heat can never be transferred by its own means from a cooler body to a hotter body, The 2nd law applies to all modes of heat transfer: conduction, convection, and radiation.
Gordo, As a non-theoretical physicist, if the IR energy emitted is a function of discrete transitions between each atom’s electron “orbits”, why does the IR spectrum of emissions from a solid body exhibit a continuous spectrum peaking at one frequency with declining intensity to each side of that frequency?
That would seem to imply that there is a continuous range of your orbital transitions all emitting at once. From this, one might think there’s no reason that said body at a higher temperature couldn’t absorb the IR radiation from a lower temperature body, the incoming radiation interacting with those atomic “orbits” of atoms which had just shifted to a lower state after emitting an IR photon.
The incoming IR radiation isn’t ignored, it’s absorbed.
swannie…”why does the IR spectrum of emissions from a solid body exhibit a continuous spectrum peaking at one frequency with declining intensity to each side of that frequency?”
***
Because the IR radiation comes from bazillions of atoms of different substances that radiate at different frequencies and have different temperatures.
If you get to the atomic level, you find that hydrogen, for example, radiates and absorbs at discrete frequencies and each frequencies is directly related to specific orbital energy levels over which the electron can jump.
You can see from the following that the element sodium radiates at very specific frequency bands.
https://www.chem.uci.edu/~unicorn/old/H2A/handouts/PDFs/sodium.pdf
Gofdo is confused again. He ignored the basis of my comment regarding the IR emission spectra from solid (or liquid) materials, jumping to that from gasses, which are widely known to exhibit discrete “lines” in their emission spectra.
Again, Gordo, any material which emits IR radiation at some wavelength will also absorb at that wavelengths. That fact does not violate the 2nd Law.
“I did not say it was lost, I merely said it was ignored. We know the energy does not simply disappear.”
So we have a choice then. Either the energy was reflected or it was transmitted unchanged (as though the mass was transparent).
RLH, No, the IR radiation energy is absorbed, unless the material is transparent at those wavelengths.
Well it has to be 1 out of the 3.
Gordon Robertson
ken…”Current GHG reduces direct thermal radiation to space by 342Wm-2″.
***
I agree with a lot of the stuff you are saying but we need to get on the same page re the science. For one, there is no such thing as thermal radiation.
***
Thermal radiation is electromagnetic radiation generated by the thermal motion of particles in matter. All matter with a temperature greater than absolute zero emits thermal radiation. Particle motion results in charge-acceleration or dipole oscillation which produces electromagnetic radiation.
The thermosphere has very hot thermal radiation and thermosphere has no temperature.
Sun’s corona [1 million C] is also similar.
They share the same low density.
CO2 is very part of Earth atmosphere, or it’s low density within
the higher density of N2 and O2 gases.
Or Mars with it’s low density atmosphere of 25 trillion tons of CO2
has higher CO2 density than Earth has by around factor of 30.
Yeah, we need to get on the same page:
https://ddears.com/2021/01/12/dr-happer-explains-effects-of-co2/
ken…”Yeah, we need to get on the same page:”
***
OK, I’ll play your game for the moment, although you are refusing to think for yourself and using Happer as an authority figure.
I don’t disagree with Happer in an overall sense I just disagree with his methodology in explaining science. He uses generalizations and claims that can be easily disproved.
For example, he claims early in his article…
“Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and other greenhouse gases are slowly increasing. Some say this will soon cause runaway global warming of Earths surface. Few realize how little scientific support there is for this concern”.
He admits there is little scientific evidence to support this theory then he goes on to apply the theory. On the other hand, a scientist from early in the 20th century, R. W. Wood, who was a world renowned expert on gases like CO2, said he could not see how CO2 in such a low concentration could be related to warming in the atmosphere. Happer makes it sound like such warming is a fait accompli and on the other hand he claims it is bad science.
Can’t have it both ways. If a trace gas is incapable of causing catastrophic warming it is incapable of the radiation blocking claimed by Happer, for the same reason.
I agree with this statement from Happer…
“The representative decrease of clear-sky thermal radiation to space from doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, 3 Wm-2, is an important number to remember. Other important numbers are the mean solar flux, 1360 Wm-2 or the 91 Wm-2 change in this flux from summer to winter. If 3 Wm-2 sounds small in comparison, it is indeed very small. Great efforts are needed to concoct a scientific argument that 3 Wm-2 is worth worrying about”.
This statement is too generalized and lacking a good scientific basis…
“Despite its thinness, the Earths atmosphere, together with the oceans that cover about 70% of the Earths surface, have a very large effect on how the heat from the Sun returns to space. This is because the atmosphere and the oceans transport heat very efficiently by convection from equatorial regions, where the yearly-averaged solar heating is maximum, to the poles where there is minimum heating”.
The heat from the Sun is a poor scientific statement. There is no heat delivered from the Sun through space. The heat causes by EM radiation from the Sun is created on the Earth. You may think my objection trivial but Happer’s words are the basis of much of the misunderstanding of the 2nd law and how heat is transferred.
The EM from the Sun is not the same EM that leaves. The lower frequency IR that leaves in a product of the conversion of high intensity SW solar radiation by surface mass to a much lower intensity, lower frequency terrestrial radiation.
Furthermore, Happer does not explain the mechanism by which only trace gases radiate to space and how they can accomplish the vast amount of heat dissipation required from the surface.
Once again, poor science…
“There is nothing to convect heat into the vacuum of outer space. So solar heat must eventually return to space as thermal radiation. But the heat can be emitted thousands of miles from where it was absorbed”.
Heat cannot be emitted!!! He admits heat cannot be transferred (convected) through the vacuum of space then he claims heat can be ’emitted’.
More bad science…
“The emission rate of thermal radiation by cloud tops or by land and ocean surfaces is proportional to T4, the fourth power of the absolute temperature T. As we discuss below, the emission of thermal radiation to space is more complicated and more affected by greenhouse gases in cloud-free areas of the Earth”.
The emission ‘rate’ is not T^4. That represents the INTENSITY of thermal radiation emitted by a surface of area, A. In fact, the emission rate is dependent on a temperature difference between two masses. The S-B equation has nothing to do with the rate of heat dissipation, it merely indicates the intensity of the radiation due to a surface temperature, T.
S-B was developed by Stefan. He based his theory on the work of Tyndall, who heated a platinum filament electrically, noting the different colours it gave off at different temperatures ranging from about 700C to 1400C. Another scientist related the colours to EM frequencies and from that Stefan managed to related the EM and their relationship to temperatures. He found the relationship was to the 4th power.
However, T^4 applies only in that temperature range.
That has nothing to do with cloud top radiation intensities. S-B applies in the range 700C – 1400C and scientists have taken great license by applying it to different temperatures.
The emission rate of clouds or any other surfaces is related to the difference in temperature between that surface and the surrounding atmosphere. That surrounding atmosphere is 99% nitrogen and oxygen, and it has to be O2 and N2 that control the rate of surface radiation or any other surface radiation.
Happer loses the context by harping on about CO2, WV, etc., forming a symphony. This is not a serious article.
In conclusion, Happer talks in generalities without focusing on a specific explanation. You don’t strike me as the type who will receive such criticism objectively, you will dismiss my effort without doing your own research.
I have arrived at my opinions over decades and I have done that from a strong scientific background. At the same time, I believe nothing, not even my own opinions. Every opinion is open to error but you have yet to begin examining the errors in your own opinions.
If you take affront at this, you have no future in science. A real student of science would research the theories that counters my arguments, if they are there.
IIRC the classic definition of energy was “capacity for doing work”. Early in my education I was taught that a quantity of energy could be converted from one form to the same quantity in another form.( less a small but inevitable loss as heat due to LOT)
Perhaps you would care to discuss the different forms that energy takes as it moves into through and out of Earth’s surface oceans and atmosphere.
While I think Happer has missed several critical points, we see here another delusional rant from Gordo who wrote:
Gordo claims to have “a strong scientific background”, but completely misses the well known facts about the IR emissions from O2 and N2, which are nearly zero in the atmosphere. The measured spectral emissions from space above TOA include major contributions from the greenhouse gases, in spite of the fact that they are small fractions of the total mass.
Perhaps Gordo should read the references in Happer’s piece (as will I, later).
O2 and N2 are not as efficient as emitting IR as are the GHGs, which is why O2 and N2 hold on to the bulk of the heat, making the surface warmer than it would otherwise be.
Besides, every Dragon crank knows that adding GHGs would increase emissivity, not decrease it.
"Ron C. says: May 3, 2014 at 3:33 pm
Another way to put the issue.
The CO2 hysteria is founded on a false picture of heat flows within the climate system. There are 3 ways that heat (Infra-Red or IR radiation) passes from the surface to space.
1) A small amount of the radiation leaves directly, because all gases in our air are transparent to IR of 10-14 microns (sometimes called the “atmospheric window.” This pathway moves at the speed of light, so no delay of cooling occurs.
2) Some radiation is absorbed and re-emitted by IR active gases up to the tropopause. Calculations of the free mean path for CO2 show that energy passes from surface to tropopause in less than 5 milliseconds. This is almost speed of light, so delay is negligible.
3) The bulk gases of the atmosphere, O2 and N2, are warmed by conduction and convection from the surface. They also gain energy by collisions with IR active gases, some of that IR coming from the surface, and some absorbed directly from the sun. Latent heat from water is also added to the bulk gases. O2 and N2 are slow to shed this heat, and indeed must pass it back to IR active gases at the top of the troposphere for radiation into space.
In a parcel of air each molecule of CO2 is surrounded by 2500 other molecules, mostly O2 and N2. In the lower atmosphere, the air is dense and CO2 molecules energized by IR lose it to surrounding gases, slightly warming the entire parcel. Higher in the atmosphere, the air is thinner, and CO2 molecules can emit IR and lose energy relative to surrounding gases, who replace the energy lost.
This third pathway has a significant delay of cooling, and is the reason for our mild surface temperature, averaging about 15C. Yes, earth’s atmosphere produces a buildup of heat at the surface. The bulk gases, O2 and N2, trap heat near the surface, while CO2 provides radiative cooling at the top of the atmosphere."
Isn’t that when Roy wrote Skeptical Arguments that Dont Hold Water, Kiddo?
The comment was not even from this blog, C*nto.
Not my problem, Kiddo.
Will the green plate be your last dance?
Asking for a friend.
Ignoring you for a friend, C*nto.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
O2 and N2 aren’t absorbing IR. They absorb heat at the surface thru conduction and move it up into the atmosphere thru convection.
Agreed.
Keep in mind the article is an attempt to distill the essentials from his paper into an article that most people can understand.
Here is the source document: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.03098.pdf
Ken, van Wijngaarden and Happer’s article contains quite a bit of complicated details of physics which would take a PhD to sort out.
Funny thing, right off the bat, I saw something I think to be clearly wrong. They wrote:
.
What’s this? H2O has 10 times the density of CO2 or N2O? Not so from basic chemistry, the well known PV=nRT. Perhaps they mean to say “concentration” or “mass fraction”, not density. Be that as it may, the rest of their effort is much beyond my level of understanding.
Gordo,
Happer’s not saying the theory is true. He’s saying if it were true, it still isn’t a problem. Happer is also one of the contributors to Berry’s paper that falsifies AGW. I don’t think Happer believes CO2 is a problem.
This leads back to your formula being untenable on 2 grounds.
The first that it allows for a planet to be either having no rotation or infinite rotation breaking the speed of light.
The second is your use of terms to get to an eighth power.
SB to the forth power is hard enough to visualise and uses up every last bit of wriggle room in third dimensional mathematics.
It is physically and mathematically impossible to work in terms of powers to the eight for calculations.
Just looking at it makes one shudder.
Take it down to quantum terms where these concepts do exist and a lot of your stuff might be fine.
You have put a lot of time , thought and effort in, appreciated.
The concept of a more even spread of temperature with rotation leading to the temperature approaching the maximum permitted temperature for energy in, energy out is correct
The moon is rotating 27 to 29 days in its orbit around the sun depending on your choice of frame. This is easily shown by the fact that it over that time the sun gets to irradiate both sides in turn
The moon does not technically rotate in its travel around the earth as shown by the fact that the same side always faces the earth.
Isolate the two structures together and you will never see a rotation
In other words you are assigning the moons rotation as it orbits the sun to a fictitious mathematical orbit of the earth.
If one looks at the two bodies in isolation which is what you are doing in your other rotational calculations.
“The moon does not technically rotate in its travel around the earth”
The Moon rotates once on its own axis for every orbit of the Earth.
That issue has been settled. The moon does not rotate on its own axis.
Only in your tiny, tiny clique. The rest of the world accepts that the Moon rotates.
…but not on its own axis.
And so you’re proven wrong, Kiddo:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-831875
I was just saying goodbye on that thread, C*nto. I never said I was going to stop commenting.
The rest of the world accepts that it rotates on its axis, once per orbit of the Earth.
I doubt most people in the world are informed or particularly care on the matter either way, RLH.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo. Unless you can provide a mathematical model for your crank Dragon intuitions, you got not case.
Here’s where you left your homework:
Yes, I was glad you left by agreeing with me that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion like the “moon on the left”, and not the “moon on the right”:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
And that the reason was “physics”.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-831863
Considering that your Master Argument does not contain any claim that pertains to physics, it can’t support any physical conclusion.
Your version of my supposed "Master Argument" is simply a collection of small snippets of quotes I have made, taken out of context. Some of them (for example, IMPOSSIBLE) are not even my own words at all. It’s sweet that you hang on (or try to twist) my every word to this extent, but it’s not really anything resembling my full argument. You have left out all the physical arguments made by myself and others, relating to the mechanics of orbital motion itself (e.g. the discussions surrounding "Newton’s Cannonball", many of Gordon’s, Clint R and Swenson’s comments, etc. etc.). If you leave out the physics, don’t blame me for it.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
You can’t claim that the Master Argument is a collection of snippets in one sentence and in the next claim that some of them are not snippets at all.
Every single claim can be supported.
You said them more than a thousand times.
Besides, Pup never makes any argument, most of Gordo’s crap is barely coherent, and if you need to rely on Mike Flynn for your physics, well best of luck!
Nevertheless, you are free to refer to any physical point you made that would support your argument. The argument you tried in that other thread ain’t it:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-831339
Please, do continue to try to lie about what I said.
Call me a liar, and the discussion is over.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
That you’ll do all by yourself.
Please support your claim that I was agreeing with you that orbit without spin is like the moon-on-the-left and not the-moon-on-the-right.
That is just how it read to me. But you do have trouble expressing yourself clearly.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-831216
So you’re trolling once again.
No, specifically the comment quoted at 12:22 PM. The way that read to me, at the time (over on the other thread), seemed like agreement. Obviously I knew that it would not turn out to be the case, but there you go.
You’re obviously trolling, Kiddo, for here’s what I said earlier:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-831028
P1 and P2 are true, and of course C follows.
I know what you said, Willard, but you finished with what looked like an agreement. The comment I referred to previously. That is just how it read. Still does. But you say you disagree, so that is fine.
That’s your opinion, Kiddo.
Your inference is wrong: your conclusion is about physics and your two premises are about geometry.
The two premises are also falsified by just about every mathematical model we have of two bodies, one being the satellite of the other.
All wrong, Willard.
That’s your opinion, Kiddo.
Should be easy to show where you have any physics component in one of your premises.
Kinematics is a branch of physics.
The only bits from kinematics that you use are definitions of two geometrical concepts, Kiddo, and they are not in your premises.
Geometry of motion is still geometry, more so if you don’t consider velocity or acceleration.
Rotation about a fixed axis is a kinematic concept, Willard, and the axis can be external to the body, or internal. Rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, would be motion as per the “moon on the left”. That comes straight from understanding rotation about a fixed axis.
Repeating yourself won’t suffice to show that the *mere* definition or orbit will make the Moon behave the way you want, Kiddo.
As far as kinematics is concerned, there’s a constraint called the Inextensible cord:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinematics#Kinematic_constraints
Seems like Flop forgot that one.
***
In any event, you might consider to drop (GIF) as it has nothing to do with kinematics. It’s just bait for trolling. The argument becomes simply:
P1**. Our Moon seems to be orbiting without spinning.
P2**. If you add spin to an object that orbits, over time you will see all sides of the object from the center of the orbit.
C. If our Moon was spinning and orbiting, you would see its other side from the Earth.
Let’s stand aside the connection between P1** and P2** for the moment: where’s your rationale for P2, again?
Should be easy to produce a demonstration for it using kinematics!
All of your nit-picking objections re Ftop_t etc are rendered moot by the fact that you believe the moon is rotating about an external axis, anyway! You just think it is also rotating about an internal axis. So your criticisms should apply equally to your own arguments. You seem to keep forgetting that…
…and once again you are changing my premises. Stop doing that. If you cannot follow how P2 works (my P2) then you obviously cannot add two motions together, mentally. If you wanted a demonstration, Ftop_t already did all those in Desmos, prior to the elliptical orbit demo that has got your knickers in a twist.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
It’s either kinematics or Flop. You can’t have both.
And no, I won’t keep repeating your florid prose: “orbit” and “spin” are short and clear enough. It’s easy to see what you’re claiming, just as it’s easy to see that you’re huffing and puffing because you can’t support it.
It’s easier to say it’s impossible for the Moon to rotate and spin without showing all its sides to the Earth than to demonstrate it using kinematics.
Good luck with that:
https://youtu.be/0c-_Uzzqgkk
See how easy it is to find toy models that refute csaitruth’s demonstration.
“It’s either kinematics or Flop. You can’t have both.”
False.
“And no, I won’t keep repeating your florid prose”
Well, if you change my premises, you are not rebutting my argument.
“It’s easy to see what you’re claiming, just as it’s easy to see that you’re huffing and puffing because you can’t support it.”
It’s been demonstrated by Ftop_t. Proven, in fact.
“See how easy it is to find toy models that refute csaitruth’s demonstration.”
That doesn’t refute csaitruth’s demonstration with the actual physical contraption.
“Kinematics is a branch of physics.”
Yes it provides a universal framework to describe motion. Which can then be explained with Forces, Torques, and Newtons laws in a way they can be universally understood and communicated.
Planetary Motion uses that universal framework and explanation.
But you deny some of its main principles and definitions, such as the definition of Rotation and Orbit.
Then you deny the explanation of rotations and orbits in terms of Forces, Torques and Newton’s Laws, given by physics.
Then you are dishonest about these denials of physics.
“That doesn’t refute csaitruth’s demonstration with the actual physical contraption.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey1dSUfmjBw
What he refers to as “normal orbital motion” at about 3:20 is rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis. You can see what happens when he adds lunar internal axis rotation to this motion, at any rate and in either direction – you see all sides of the moon from Earth. This video demonstrates P2 as good as any.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
“If you change my premises” fails because I don’t.
Here’s evidence:
Compare and contrast:
P2**. If you add spin to an object that orbits, over time you will see all sides of the object from the center of the orbit.
Care to try again to play dumb?
Nope…no idea what you are talking about.
That’s where you play dumb, Kiddo:
P2**. If you add spin to an object that orbits, over time you will see all sides of the object from the center of the orbit.
Spin is rotation on one’s axis.
Orbit is rotation* on an external axis.
Rotation is strict or pure rotation.
Rotation* is rotation as understood by astronomers.
Three years and you’re unable to solve a geometry problem involving four points.
So…you agree with me that the video demonstrates my second premise…or?
Still no idea what you are going on about.
It’s your premise, Kiddo.
That’s what I call it IMPOSSIBLE:
(IMPOSSIBLE) If the Moon spun while in orbit it would rotate 360 degrees and all sides would be observable from the Earth.
You and that csa truther guy argue that adding a spin to its orbit will make it rotate 360 degrees.
So the claim rests on the idea that the Moon can’t spin if it’s to preserve the same side to the Earth. In other words, all I need is to show that it’s possible for a satellite to spin and to orbit while preserving the same side to its planet.
Please, stop playing dumb.
I have never written the sentence that you write next to “IMPOSSIBLE”. Please stop misrepresenting me.
“In other words, all I need is to show that it’s possible for a satellite to spin and to orbit while preserving the same side to its planet.”
Which you can only do if you define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion like the “moon on the right”, or curvilinear translation in a circle.
The reason you get so confused is, you do not understand the difference between rotation about an external axis, and curvilinear translation in a circle. So you do not understand why I insist on keeping my claims and premises as I wrote them. I give up talking to you.
You are a clown, that twists my words, then claim that you understand my argument better than I do, whilst you simultaneously demonstrate that you do not understand.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
IMPOSSIBLE expresses your claim in a better manner than you ever worded it. I can’t trust you to express something clear. For instance:
The moon-on-the-right has nothing to do here. The question is how can we describe the moon-on-the-left.
“Orbital motion without axial rotation” simply means orbit without spin.
Your “curvilinear translation in a circle” is extraneous.
All you say here is that it’s not possible for the Moon to orbit and spin without a translation. So let’s add this to your Master Argument:
(TRANSLATION) It’s not possible for the Moon to orbit and spin without a translation.
To which it is easy to reply:
(SO WHAT) If some translation were involved in that movement, so what?
The csa truther guy argues for something stronger than that. Check back his video.
Please stop playing dumb.
You are hopelessly lost. Carry on in your abject confusion. It amuses me.
Please stop gaslighting, Kiddo.
You can’t solve a rudimentary geometry problem. In fact you can’t even state it properly:
Let *A* be the center around which the Moon spins and *B* the center around which the Earth spins. The *AB* line connects both centers.
Let *C* be the point at the surface of the Moon lying on *AB*, and *D* the point at the surface of the Earth lying on *AB*.
Whether the Moon spins or not, you can find *C* and *D* – *A* orbits in both cases. If the Moon spins, all you need is to make sure that its orbit is synchronized with it. That’s called a spin-orbit lock.
The moon-on-the-left is preserved. Our silly csa truther proves nothing. IMPOSSIBLE is false.
Do continue to play dumb.
The only way you can say the “moon on the left” is both “orbiting” and “rotating on its own axis” is if you define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as per the “moon on the right”.
You won’t understand, but that’s par for the course with you.
Please stop playing dumb, Kiddo.
Nobody but you cares about your silly definition games. Spin and orbit are clear concepts. They suffice to characterize a spin-orbit lock.
The Moon we have could have been orbiting without spinning. It just so happens that our understanding of physics makes it very unlikely. We have numerical models for the Earth-Moon system. Moon Dragons like you only have trolling.
You have refuted nothing, grasshopper.
The only way you can say the “moon on the left” is both “orbiting” and “rotating on its own axis” is if you define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as per the “moon on the right”.
You won’t understand, but that’s par for the course with you.
Oh well.
Here’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
You want to turn this into a definition game because you got nothing else. So you troll by misreading ou are misreading
The moon-on-the-right is the result of kinematics that involve position, velocity, force, etc.
It is not the result of redefining rotation.
You won’t understand, but that’s par for the course with you.
Oh well.
Please stop gaslighting, Kiddo.
You won’t get an Earth-Moon model with just rotation and translation, you know.
You got to add some physics.
You have ignored all the more physics-involved arguments from myself and the various “Non-Spinners” because you don’t understand them. That is par for the course with you.
Oh well.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
I have refuted every single geometric point you got.
It is possible to describe the moon-on-the-left in many ways. The established one makes it orbiting and spinning. Rotation and translation allow the physics to get the job done.
You could claim that it’s only orbiting, and that rotation* suffices. But that’s no refutation of the established view. The csa truther claimed he had one.
It’s obviously false. To provide an orbit-lock is a no-brainer. Search for my clock model.
Please stop gaslighting.
You have refuted nothing. Par for the course with you.
Oh well.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-797433
This is equivalent to your P2:
This is equivalent to my
P2**. If you add spin to an object that orbits, over time you will see all sides of the object from the center of the orbit.
All of the above are false:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10569-017-9783-7
I repeat my previous comments.
Of course you do, Kiddo.
Let me repeat another one of yours:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-759248
A very similar claim than the one you’re trying to support by fleeing, don’t you think?
That claim is also correct.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
https://www.space.com/24871-does-the-moon-rotate.html
[Rolls eyes]
Thanks for playing, Kiddo.
OK, Willard.
“I was just saying goodbye on that thread, C*nto. I never said I was going to stop commenting.”
He never said he would stop pushing the big lie that the Moon doesnt rotate on its axis. The one that he can only justify with dishonest, contradictory, pretzel logic.
Not clear from his many contradictory statements that he even believes it anymore.
No matter, he desperately needs the attention that this ridiculous, endless argument brings him.
#2
OK, Willard.
DR EMPTY,
Oh Well,
since you asked for it, here it is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0ag8DkipmQ
bob, please stop trolling.
DR EMPTY,
I just thought you should listen to some music since you can’t understand any science.
Poor bob, just like Willard, believes the moon is both rotating about an external axis and rotating about an internal axis. He doesn’t understand that an object that is rotating about an external axis and not rotating about an internal axis, 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
Which, incidentally, moves much like our moon. So, if the moon were rotating about both an external and an internal axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
So, if the moon were rotating about both an external and an internal axis, writes DREMT more or less than 360 as it really only “changes its orientation through 360 degrees” you would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
An object that is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about an internal axis moves as per the “moon on the left”. As you can see from the GIF, its orientation changes through 360 degrees.
Good DREMT, like Gordon wrote, for our moon even DREMT now admits our moon and “a persons orientation will change through 360 degrees per lap.” DREMT has come a long way forward in learning to now come to agreement that was settled long ago at this debate inception.
DR EMPTY,
We have concluded that
“An object that is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about an internal axis moves as per the “moon on the left”. As you can see from the GIF, its orientation changes through 360 degrees.”
and this
“An object that is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about an internal axis moves as per the “moon on the left”. As you can see from the GIF, it rotates.
mean the same damn thing
bob, the “moon on the left” is rotating…just not on its own axis. It’s so simple, that you refuse to understand.
DREMT now agrees our moon “of course” and “a persons orientation will change through 360 degrees per lap. so DREMT is now in agreement with bob on that aspect of the moon’s motion.
Another, different debate has formed.
It’s so simple, that you refuse to understand.
It IS simple to understand so that now even DREMT is forced to admit “of course” our moon and “a persons orientation will change through 360 degrees per lap.”
…because it is rotating, but not on its own axis.
Great, still Settled with DREMT agreeing with Gordon that our moon changes in orientation 360 per lap of Earth. It IS motion so simple even DREMT now understands.
So Ball4 agrees that the moon is rotating about an external axis, and not on its own, regardless of reference frame. Excellent.
Which means DREMT is sticking to his now improved view, debate settled with DREMT in agreement admitting our moon and “a persons orientation will change through 360 degrees per lap.”
I’m happy that DREMT has now come around to agree “Excellent” with the debate being settled. Now the moon motion debate can move on to something else, finally.
Our moon and “a persons orientation will change through 360 degrees per lap.” is now the prevailing DREMT view.
So Ball4 does>/b> agree that the moon is rotating about an external axis, and not on its own, regardless of reference frame? I was only half joking, but he does not seem to be denying it…
As Nate writes, THAT is a different debate since DREMT has conceded the current moon motion debate and admits to DREMT’s much improved moon motion view, the old debate settled with DREMT in “Excellent” agreement admitting our moon and “a persons orientation will change through 360 degrees per lap.”
Oh, you are just trolling. You do a lot of that.
I have never trolled. DREMT just dreams it is so to deflect well supported criticism. Now that DREMT has conceded his position on moon motion was wrong maybe something constructive can happen.
You are either on drugs, or trolling, or both.
DR EMPTY,
“bob, the “moon on the left” is rotating…just not on its own axis. It’s so simple, that you refuse to understand.”
DR EMPTY, an object that is rotating defines the axis it is rotating around.
Remember we are not talking about revolving anymore, you lost that skirmish.
Care to bring your arguments, or lack there of into three dimensions?
no way dude, you can’t do it.
Buck buck caw
“an object that is rotating defines the axis it is rotating around”
Exactly, bob…and the “moon on the left” is rotating about an external axis (revolving), and not rotating about an internal axis. As agreed by even my most critical stalker. You and him need to argue that out, if you still disagree.
Sorry DR EMPTY,
You already admitted the Moon rotates.
That’s the term for rotation around an internal axis.
Rotation around an external axis is revolving, which is not rotating.
You lose.
“Exactly, boband the moon on the left is rotating about an external axis (revolving), and not rotating about an internal axis. As agreed by even my most critical stalker. You and him need to argue that out, if you still disagree.”
You still refuse to provide evidence that the Moon is not rotating on an internal axis, just stating it a thousand times does not win the argument.
The Moon is observed to spin on an internal axis, you are arguing against facts, not looking good.
An Nate an I do not disagree, you misunderstood what he posted.
Not surprising
The "moon on the left" is rotating about an external axis, and not about an internal axis, as my stalker agrees. Argue it out with him. Here is what he said:
"[DREMT] Firstly, Craig, we know from upthread that an object that is rotating about an external axis (without rotating about its own center of mass) always presents the same face to that axis whilst it moves [motion as per the "moon on the left"].
[STALKER] TRUE"
pups, You are beating a dead horse again. As has been pointed out to you numerous times, the Moons orbit is an ellipse, thus the distance between the Moon’s CG and the Earth changes. Also, the rate of rotation of the Earth to Moon vector changes around the orbit. As a result, it’s impossible for the Moon to “rotate” about that single point. This result could only be possible with a circular orbit.
The obvious fact is: Moon’s CG orbits (aka: revolves) around the Earth and The Moon’s mass rotates once an orbit around it’s CG.
“not about an internal axis, as my stalker agrees.”
Actually not accurate.
What I have said is what YOU have agreed, which is that the Moon on the left can be described either as:
1. A pure rotation on an external axis.
2. A curvilinear translation on its orbital path plus axial rotation.
Once again (Caution DREMT: plug ears and cover eyes) only an exceedingly rare circular, 1-1 synchronous orbit, with no axial tilt, can be described as (1).
This excludes our Moon.
All orbits can be described as #2, it is UNIVERSALLY applicable to any orbit.
Thus Astronomy, Physics, Engineering use #2 to describe Orbits.
But DREMT must, inexplicably, continue to IGNORE this reality.
Swanson, you seem to understand (as my stalker has again confirmed) that the “moon on the left” can be described as a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis. Your only way out is to complain that the real moon moves in an elliptical orbit, with a varying orbital speed. Hence you would rather describe its motion as a translation, plus a rotation about an internal axis (motion like the “moon on the right”, plus axial rotation). You have multiple problems:
1) You disagree with “Spinners” like bob and Willard, who argue that the “moon on the left” is both rotating about an external axis and an internal axis. So you need to settle the score with these “Spinners” first.
2) When it comes to astronomy, obviously the definition of “rotation about an external axis” is not so strict. Otherwise, you would not have “rotation about an external axis” as the definition of “revolution” in the first place.
3) Desmos can be programmed to rotate an object about an external axis in an elliptical shape.
4) No matter how you describe it, “orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion like the “moon on the left”, not the “moon on the right”. As per the discussion on Newton’s Cannonball, and the airliner circumnavigating the Earth, etc.
Of the four, number 4) is probably most important.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
Your pet GIF is indeterminate. There’s not a best way to read it.
You can’t use it to support your definition game.
Here’s how you trick works. Let L be the moon-on-the-left and R be the moon-on-the-right. Let G stand for geometry and P for physics. Let also () denote an evaluation function, and 1 and 0 be the result of interpreting if it applies to our Moon, or would apply in the case of counterfactuals.
Here are the answers if we stand aside the issue of frames of reference:
G(L) = 1
P(L) = 1
G(R) = 0
P(R) = 1
The only interpretation that fails is to view the moon-on-the-right geometrically. Your puzzle is indeterminate because G and P behave differently when looking at the two sides.
Your trick is dispelled when we distinguish geometry from physics.
Besides, one does not simply define geometric terms with a GIF.
E. Swanson says:
As has been pointed out to you numerous times, the Moons orbit is an ellipse, thus the distance between the Moons CG and the Earth changes. Also, the rate of rotation of the Earth to Moon vector changes around the orbit. As a result, its impossible for the Moon to rotate about that single point. This result could only be possible with a circular orbit.
——————
——————
More utter nonsense from the spinner crowd.
What good would kinematics be if everything had to be the ‘perfect ellipse’ aka circle? What we have is a problem with education of understanding that concepts are merely a tool of working with reality rather than reality itself.
B. Hunter wrote:
The question isn’t about kinematics, it’s about dynamics.
pups would have us believe that the Moon’s motion is an example of “rotation about an external axis”, which necessarily requires that the distance between the Moon and that external axis is of fixed length for describing the Moon’s angular momentum. If the distance changes and the rotation speed changes, where are the forces applied and how would one describe such motion using math, the language of science?
It’s widely accepted in the engineering and science world that the best mathematical approach is to define the motion of the CG using basics of velocity and gravitational acceleration, then model the moon’s rotation as changing orientation with respect to the stars. The Moon, having a large moment of inertia, rotates at a constant rate relative to the stars as it follows an elliptical path around the Earth.
pups has never presented a coherent model of the supposed motion, relying only on the cartoon with two views of the Moon moving around the Earth. pups refuses to acknowledge that at the scale of the Earth, Moon and Sun, measurements and mathematical descriptions require an inertial reference frame.
“pups would have us believe that the Moon’s motion is an example of “rotation about an external axis””
Not just “pups”, Swanson, whoever that is, but also some of the the “Spinners” such as bob and Willard, who also argue that the moon is rotating about an external axis. They just think it is also rotating about an internal axis. So all your criticisms can be applied equally to their arguments as they can to mine. As well as the fact that if the moon were both rotating about an external axis and rotating about an internal axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
But that is just number 1) of the 4) points you avoided responding to, by replying to bill instead of me.
DREMT really means as well as the fact that if the moon were both rotating about an external axis and rotating about an internal axis more or less than an orientation change of 360 degrees per lap, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth…
since DREMT has now agreed with:
our moon and “a persons orientation will change through 360 degrees per lap.”
“As per the discussion on Newtons Cannonball, and the airliner circumnavigating the Earth, etc.”
Again the fantasy that the cannonball is somehow keeping the same face to the Earth??
There is nothing in any diagram of the Newton’s cannonball indicating this to be the case.
There is nothing stated by Newton indicating this to be the case.
There is no physics to account for that behavior.
There is nothing in the equation derived by Newton or his followers to indicate this is the case.
The equation simply finds the trajectory, the path of the cannonball. Its orbit. Not its orientation.
Thus, there is zero evidence to support the idea that the fired cannonball must keep the same side oriented to the Earth.
This is pure invention by DREMT and followers.
But it looks like he will continue indefinitely to promote this Big Lie.
Why?
“DREMT really means as well as the fact that if the moon were both rotating about an external axis and rotating about an internal axis more or less than an orientation change of 360 degrees per lap, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth”
No, Ball4, I do not mean that. The orientation change through 360 degrees is just due to the orbital motion, the rotation about an external axis, with no internal axis rotation. Thus, if the moon were rotating about an external axis and rotating about an internal axis, you would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
“The orientation change through 360 degrees is just due to the orbital motion”
DREMT has clearly done the cost benefit analysis.
He’s found that there is little cost to keep on lying.
The benefit is he gets to keep the argument going indefinitely and continue to get the negative attention that he craves.
Yeah Nate it’s fun & entertaining to watch DREMT contradict DREMT’s own statements then leave out important aspects of observations for the reader to work to understand:
Thus, if the moon were rotating about an external axis and rotating about an internal axis more or less than once per rev. (lap), you would see all sides of the moon from Earth.
“The “moon on the left” is rotating about an external axis, and not about an internal axis, as my stalker agrees. Argue it out with him. Here is what he said:”
Isn’t it ironic
“Tidal locking (also called gravitational locking, captured rotation and spinorbit locking), in the best-known case, occurs when an orbiting astronomical body always has the same face toward the object it is orbiting. This is known as synchronous rotation: the tidally locked body takes just as long to rotate around its own axis as it does to revolve around its partner.”
That DR EMPTY uses a gif from wikipedia that states the above.
Don’t you think?
Nate has clearly corrected you on the meaning of that quote, you won’t admit that you misunderstood him, and are misquoting him.
Sorry you lose again
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Clzo71HTVM0
bob and Ball4, you are in direct disagreement with my stalker, as my stalker confirmed yet again earlier:
“What I have said is what YOU have agreed, which is that the Moon on the left can be described either as:
1. A pure rotation on an external axis.
2. A curvilinear translation on its orbital path plus axial rotation.”
By 1), my stalker means a rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis. You are in direct disagreement, because you do not accept that the “moon on the left” can be described as a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis. It is as simple as that.
DR EMPTY,
But
“You are in direct disagreement, because you do not accept that the “moon on the left” can be described as a rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis. It is as simple as that.”
This is directly contradicted by the cite where you get the gif!
No shit sherlock, I disagree because the cite where your gif comes from disagrees with your position.
And your stalker has corrected you.
And your position is directly contradicted by the evidence in three dimensions that contradicts your position that the Moon has no axial rotation.
You are ignoring evidence contradictory to your position.
By my count you are wrong five times.
Wrong and wrong and spam and wrong and spam and spam and wrong and spam and spam and spam and wrong.
Now we will just make fun of you.
You really are clueless, bob. Once again, my stalker said:
“What I have said is what YOU have agreed, which is that the Moon on the left can be described either as:
1. A pure rotation on an external axis.
2. A curvilinear translation on its orbital path plus axial rotation.”
My stalker agrees (in 1.) that the “moon on the left” can be described as rotating about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis. The tidal locking cite, then, according to how my stalker sees this, must be defining “revolution” as a “curvilinear translation on its orbital path”.
So you disagree with my stalker on 2 points:
1) You do not agree that the “moon on the left” can be described as rotating about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis.
2) You do not agree that “revolution” is “curvilinear translation on its orbital path”. You agree with me, instead, that “revolution” means “rotation about an external axis”.
Kind kinda forgot to quote the sentences that follow, Kiddo:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-838525
I am already more than aware of his opinion on that, thanks.
bob and my stalker disagree on the two points mentioned, though of course they agree that our moon rotates on its own axis. That agreement was never in doubt.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo. Bob and Nate’s views are quite compatible. You obviously don’t understand their views. Nor do you understand what I said earlier about the many ways we can see your pet GIF.
They disagree on the two points explained.
”
I am already more than aware of his opinion on that, thanks.”
Hes already aware that Brown and Madhavi say he is wrong about rotation.
Hes already aware that Newtons cannonball doesn’t keep the same face to the Earth.
Hes already aware that his definition of Orbit is fictional.
He is already aware that he cannot win the moon argument on the facts.
Thus he needs a distraction.
Thus he is highly focused on WhataboutBobism.
I wonder if bob or my stalker will ever have the integrity to admit that they disagree?
Probably not.
Nate says: (also for Swanson: The question isn’t about kinematics, it’s about dynamics.)
Again the fantasy that the cannonball is somehow keeping the same face to the Earth??
————————–
————————–
Not true. As soon as the cannon is fired the forces are operating on the cannonball that will eventually cause it to maintain a face toward the earth even if it does not immediately.
Thus if you want to look at forces you look at forces. If you want to look for a spin then perhaps you should consider the measuring the current spin in relationship to the operating forces. (e.g. the moon will have an independent spin in relationship to the current forces acting upon it.)
Of course you can arbitrarily pick another location for determining that but science is never arbitrary so you are only fooling yourself that it is scientific in nature.
“Not true. As soon as the cannon is fired the forces are operating on the cannonball that will eventually cause it to maintain a face toward the earth even if it does not immediately.”
This is thought experiment on a uniform sphere and its immediate motion.
So Nope, there is no logic or physics to support that, Bill.
DR really EMPTY headed foolish person, I fart in your general direction.
“You really are clueless, bob. Once again, my stalker said:
“What I have said is what YOU have agreed, which is that the Moon on the left can be described either as:
1. A pure rotation on an external axis.
2. A curvilinear translation on its orbital path plus axial rotation.”
HOLD it right there, Nate is not agreeing with you, he is just stating your position, that you agree with, not that he agrees with you.
I guess your skull is just too thick to get that.
“My stalker agrees (in 1.) that the “moon on the left” can be described as rotating about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis.”
He agrees to this only in the case of a circular orbit, which is clearly not the case for the Moon.
It’s fucking obvious if you look at that gif, that the Moon on the left is fucking rotating.
“The tidal locking cite, then, according to how my stalker sees this, must be defining “revolution” as a “curvilinear translation on its orbital path”.
Understanding that would be a good start.
“So you disagree with my stalker on 2 points:
1) You do not agree that the “moon on the left” can be described as rotating about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis.”
No, we agree that this is a special case that does not apply to the Moon.
“2) You do not agree that “revolution” is “curvilinear translation on its orbital path”. You agree with me, instead, that “revolution” means “rotation about an external axis”.
No I don’t agree with you, revolution is rotation about an external axis only when the orbit is circular, which is not the case with the Moon.
Try arguing about the Moons motion in three dimensions.
You might see the light, but after all these years, I am sure you would rather curse the darkness rather than light a candle.
As we can see, bob has no integrity.
“It’s fucking obvious if you look at that gif, that the Moon on the left is fucking rotating.”
…but it can be described as not rotating on its own axis, as you finally now accept that my stalker agrees…and yet you apparently still disagree, whilst trying to pretend you agree!
“Understanding that would be a good start.”
Yes, if you understood that “curvilinear translation in a circle, with no rotation about an internal axis”, and “rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis” were two completely different motions, that would be a good start for you.
““[DREMT] So you disagree with my stalker on 2 points:
1) You do not agree that the “moon on the left” can be described as rotating about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis.”
[BOB] No, we agree that this is a special case that does not apply to the Moon.”
So you now claim. Yet you still said earlier in this same response, “it’s fucking obvious if you look at that gif, that the Moon on the left is fucking rotating”…bob is now arguing with himself, as well as my stalker. Do I need to again dig up your past claims about the “moon on the left” and the “moon on the right”? You have said before that the “moon on the right” is the one that is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about an internal axis!
“No I don’t agree with you, revolution is rotation about an external axis only when the orbit is circular, which is not the case with the Moon.”
That’s the line that you have now decided to take. I could again look up past comments that show this is a recent development for you, but why bother? You will never accept that you disagree with my stalker…because that is just not in the playbook for you guys.
Dear clueless DR EMPTY,
I do not disagree with Nate, you are misquoting and misunderstanding him, even after he corrects you, very bad form.
“Yes, if you understood that “curvilinear translation in a circle, with no rotation about an internal axis”, and “rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis” were two completely different motions, that would be a good start for you.”
No I don’t “understand” that because they are both the same motion, the Moon on the right.
You have changed the definition of no axial rotation for a satellite to mean synchronous rotation. No axial rotation is one rotation per orbit for you and the non-spinner clique.
That’s where you are wrong and always will be wrong.
“No I don’t “understand” that because they are both the same motion, the Moon on the right.”
Lol…so bob just argued again that rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is motion like the “moon on the right”. Despite recently agreeing with me and my stalker that it is motion like the “moon on the left”. He continues to argue with me, himself, and my stalker.
Fun to watch.
DR EMPTY
Now you are just lying
“Despite recently agreeing with me and my stalker that it is motion like the moon on the left. He continues to argue with me, himself, and my stalker.”
The Moon on the left is revolving and rotating on its axis.
It is not rotating on an external axis and not rotating on an internal axis as you claim.
I’ll bet you get and an or mixed up again.
“[DREMT] My stalker agrees (in 1.) that the “moon on the left” can be described as rotating about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis.
[BOB] He agrees to this only in the case of a circular orbit, which is clearly not the case for the Moon.”
The “moon on the left” gif is a representation of a circular orbit.
So you are aware that my stalker thinks the “moon on the left” is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about an internal axis.
He does not think that the “moon on the right” is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about an internal axis. Only you think that. You are wrong.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Your pet GIF is a representation of a spin-orbit locking. Notice the two concepts. Spin. Orbit.
Recall the caption:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
So no, it’s not a GIF that only represents a circular orbit.
It’s a GIF that represents a spin and an orbit.
You keep misrepresenting that GIF that represents a physical phenomenon as a mere geometric definition game.
bob is wrong, Willard. I will not be responding to you further.
…and answer came there none.
Nate says:
September 9, 2021 at 3:00 PM
Not true. As soon as the cannon is fired the forces are operating on the cannonball that will eventually cause it to maintain a face toward the earth even if it does not immediately.
This is thought experiment on a uniform sphere and its immediate motion.
So Nope, there is no logic or physics to support that, Bill.
————————-
You have erred in your logic Nate as I am not arguing about the cannonball. . . .but instead this topic is about the moon and the moon only.
So as I have said many times like the floating bowls in a much larger spinning dish that was suddenly accelerated. . . .the bowls may not immediately accelerate to the same spin rate as the dish but would in time.
For the moon that transitional stage occurred a long time ago and that initial spin is all gone.
So now you need to either defend your arbitrary frame of reference or consider it within the frame of physics that created the moon’s tidal locked rotation around the earth.
If you do the latter, then the moon rotates around the earth in compliance with the realm of physics, kinematics, and history; while if you do the former your argument becomes completely arbitrary, empty, of no remaining significance and outside of the realm of physics by relying upon an arbitrary non-physically associated frame of reference. (some irrelevant and arbitrary distant star)
DR EMPTY,
Clearly you are clinging to the wrong terminology with a kung foo death grip.
Let me explain how to properly describe the gig you love so much.
The Moon on the left is orbiting
The Moon of the right is orbiting
The Moon on the left is rotating on its axis
The Moon on the right is not.
No more bullshit about rotating on an external axis, that is the wrong terminology.
You are wrong, bob. Just accept it. Thick, fat, and wrong.
You are wrong DR EMPTY,
The truth is I am not pretty, I can’t sing, and my legs are thin.
You just claim I am wrong, you can’t prove it or even give an argument as to how I am wrong.
OK, bob.
> I will first note you did not provide any support for any of these facts whatsoever
You are not entitled to room service, Bill. Perhaps if you took the effort to formulate what’s your problem with 3-4-5-7 you’d risk getting the sammiches you keep requesting. Here’s a very simple schematic to get you started:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon
For now, I’d like you to acknowledge that your “I have no idea what in your discourse you consider to be facts” was a bit silly.
“3) Desmos can be programmed to rotate an object about an external axis in an elliptical shape.”
So says some idiot Ftop. Who cares?
Irrelevant to Kinematic definition of Rotation.
You plead for people to use Correct definitions of things, but here you are blatantly are NOT using the correct definition of ROTATION.
“4) No matter how you describe it, ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ is motion like the ‘moon on the left’, not the ‘moon on the right’. ”
Again declaring ‘truth’ by making up your own personal definition of ORBIT. And contradicting your own posts.
So you are a liar and hypocrite.
Where is the logic here?? Here you are contradicting your own statements.
“More utter nonsense from the spinner crowd.”
As we can see, that seems to be all they have left.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
You are misinterpreting your favorite GIF.
Sticking to “orbit” and “spin” might unconfuse yourself.
The entire discussion is about “what is orbit?”, Willard. Not necessarily how it is defined, but what the motion actually is. You will not understand. I will not be bothered.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
The discussion is about what the Moon does.
More precisely, if it spins.
For real.
Unless and until you produce a numerical model of the Earth-Moon system where the Moon does not spin, you got no case.
Please stop being thick, fat, and wrong.
“The entire discussion is about ‘what is orbit?’, Willard. Not necessarily how it is defined, but what the motion actually is.”
Well thats a convenient way to avoid ‘definitions’.
What is DREMTs definition of ‘is’?
What IS his definition of DEFINITION?
OK, Willard. Let us use “orbit” and “spin”, as you suggest, and see how far we get.
“Spinners”: the MOTL is orbiting and spinning once, counter-clockwise, per orbit. The MOTR is orbiting, and not spinning.
“Non-Spinners”: the MOTL is orbiting and not spinning. The MOTR is orbiting, and spinning once, clockwise, per orbit.
Oh look…we got nowhere. We just established the disagreement that everyone is already aware of, and which ultimately comes down to “what is orbit?”, as I said.
Whereas using “rotation” and “translation” correctly, has led us to be able to identify errors in thought, such as bob’s, which prevent him from understanding the “Non-Spinner” view.
“down to ‘what is orbit?’, as I said.”
Uhh… you mean how it is DEFINED? Cuz it was clear as mud.
This part of the debate IS purely semantic. The universal definition of ORBIT is not the one you use. So your argument is pointless. You are not going to change the definition used by science.
OTOH the other part, about how the fired cannonball is not semantic. It involves the actual motion of the cannonball and the physics of it.
Your notion that the fired cannonball naturally will orbit the way with the same side facing inward, is either true or false. It is testable.
On this question you simply are wrong, as discussed below. It does not agree with Newton’s Laws which have been tested countless times.
Spinners continue to evade the key question of the essence of things.
They claim the earth eons ago slowly slowed the spin of the moon to a rate synchronous with the orbit rotation of the moon around the earth.
An obviously incomplete argument ignoring accumulation of momentum associated with a force.
If we assume for a moment only two directions of a spin of an object with an independent spin, one in the same direction as the orbit and one in the opposite direction. Their argument only makes sense of slowing the spin in one direction and they don’t have a consistent explanation to describe the source of spin being a residual for an object that was originally spinning in an opposite direction. The original spin must have been stopped to create the spin in the opposite direction and become synchronous with the orbit.
And of course there are an infinite number of directions the original spin could of taken. Only one of such being capable of being synchronous with the direction of the orbit rotation. This would effectively make it infinitely unlikely any object that once had an independent spin and was currently tidal locked would continue to have a residual of that independent spin and maintain a single face toward the axis of its orbital rotation.
So the spinners endlessly obfuscate about arbitrary viewpoints where the appearance of the moon from distant points appears to rotate. Yes it does, but its rotating around the object it is orbiting in complete compliance as per Madhavi’s description of rotation.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
The “errors in thought” are all yours. You still are confusing geometry with physics. Getting nowhere is part of your trolling.
And now you’re stuck because we have a Master Argument (v. 1.6):
To define what an orbit is won’t tell you what the Moon does. All it does is to present an empirical argument as a conceptual one. That’s just silly trolling.
You should desist.
The only way out is for you to provide a numerical model of the Earth-Moon system where the Moon does not spin. You don’t have one. You lost. Bob won. Suck it up.
I repeat my previous comment, which refutes your response.
I will repeat Tim’s comment, with some edits to facilitate copy-pasting:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-844034
You will see that comment until you get it or you stop trolling, Kiddo.
Yes I get it, and have responded.
OK, Kiddo:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-844186
Tim said what he said. He cannot back away from it now.
There’s no problem with playing touch move, Kiddo:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-826867
At the time you tried to squirrel your way out with “what about bob.”
Tsk tsk.
Huh?
Compare and contrast:
(SIMPLES) Our position is simpler because it is one motion instead of two combined.
(SO WHAT) If some translation were involved in that movement, so what?
If you prefer:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-830441
What has this (which has already been discussed) have to do with my discussion with Tim? What did my discussion with Tim have to do with what we were discussing previously? Why do you keep throwing up random diversions every five minutes? Can you not just obsess over somebody else for a change?
Willard says:
The only way out is for you to provide a numerical model of the Earth-Moon system where the Moon does not spin. You don’t have one. You lost. Bob won. Suck it up.
==================
the numerical model is simple. You guys try to give it as the angular momentum of moon alone and with a brain in neutral burning zero calories conclude that has no other motion that you can mathematically describe. If you actually turn your brain back on then you should (assuming its operational) realize that a formula with only a point mass is only one part of the necessary formula for L. You need a second formula with a radius to describe the actual shape of the moon. We send people to school teach them the concept of a ‘point mass’ and they immediately assume its a real physical unit.
As they say they can lead a moron to the classroom but they can’t take the dunce cap off the moron.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo: JAQing off does not acknowledge the tension in your Master Argument.
Next time you’ll ask “but what about Bob,” Kiddo, please recall that you can’t own your geometry contorsions.
***
If the numerical model is easy, Bill, it should be easy to show one. You’re the numbers guy. Show just one.
OK, Willard. I will remember that you believe there is “tension” in what you call my “master argument” next time I try to help bob out from his total and absolute confusion about fixed axis rotation, which completely prevents him from understanding the “Non-Spinner” view. In the meantime, you can do what you do, which is to enable him. bob says the MOTR is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about an internal axis, whereas myself and my stalker agree that this description actually applies to the MOTL (as is now well-documented, and our argument well-supported). Despite this total and complete contradiction, you will continue to say that all our views are compatible, and that bob is not wrong. bob will never admit that he was wrong, as long as he lives. That’s that.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
There is a tension between SO WHAT and SIMPLES:
(SO WHAT) If some translation were involved in that movement, so what?
(SIMPLES) Our position is simpler because it is one motion instead of two combined.
for the Moon Dragon motion involves a translation too. In fact the whole ordeal can be reduced to choosing between a translation in the direction of the force or a translation perpendicular to it. And Tim is showing you which one is making physical sense as we speak.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-844034
But kicking your ass at your conceptual game is still satisfying.
If you say so, Willard.
Willard says:
”If the numerical model is easy, Bill, it should be easy to show one. Youre the numbers guy. Show just one.”
Willard if you understood what a numerical model was you would know I already laid that out for you. The actual numbers don’t matter because they would change with every orbiting situation in the universe based upon mass and radii.
The numerical model is Newton’s. The only thing that you don’t understand about it is what the physical reality of it is as you confuse conceptual shortcuts with physicality. Thats typical of a rote learner who lacks the vision required for understanding or in lieu of envisioning simply takes as fact what somebody else tells them.
In Newton’s model the concept of a ‘point mass’ should be your clue. You take it as something with real substance that describes the orbital momentum of the moon orbiting the earth. But to make that point mass into a real object is necessary to add dimensions to it and do another calculation. . . .mean of course that Lorb can never stand alone as a point can never have a mass. Newton understood that, maybe your teacher did too, what happened to you?
TL;DR, Bill.
That’s a lot of words for saying that you don’t have a numerical model. Keep waving your arms – one day you’ll fly to the Moon!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Willard says:
That’s a lot of words for saying that you don’t have a numerical model. Keep waving your arms – one day you’ll fly to the Moon!
=========================
I don’t have a model? I told you my model is Newton’s model! Are you claiming Newton doesn’t have a model for the angular momentum of an orbiting body?
If you do you better start boning up on your studies.
If want to claim that Newton’s model for the orbital angular momentum for a body not spinning from the perspective of outerspace is Lorb + 0 it is on you to prove it. That is ridiculous because the moon isn’t a point mass but has dimension and thus has a spin associated with that no matter if it has a spin from some spot out in outerspace.
I see the model as LorbC + LspinC for the current state of our moon with C representing Current state. For the imaginary moon of ours that does not appear to be rotating from outerspace the formula would be LorbC + LorbC +LorbI (with I for imaginary non-spin or independent spin however you like it)
goofed! That last formula should be LorbC+LspinC+LspinI
> If want to claim
That’s an inelegant way to reverse the burden of proof, Bill:
[ISAAC] Because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb.
If you think that some model M should be interpreted differently, then the onus is on you to make your case. And even if you succeed, you will only have made a semantic argument.
Thats just typical of you science morons. Using a definition of menstrual as scientific evidence the moon’s rotation is independent and coincidental when everybody and his 5 year old cousin agrees it is forced and dependent as a result of the forces keeping it in orbit around the earth.
Kinematics properly handles this on that concept for all of engineering. The excuse that engineering isn’t part of astronomy merely shows a propensity of morons to just blindly go along with the cataloging system of astronomical phenomena like an esteemed member of some uniform briefcase drill team. Surely your cataloging system has no roots nor basis in physics. . . .its merely a concept similar to a sticky file label.
Your arguments are not cohesive joining in on complaints about elliptical orbits and variations in angular velocity. You need to be consistent as to whether there is angular momentum associated with orbiting bodies or not and not play both sides against the middle.
As to Newton. He did create a model. The model clearly shows the way to calculate the angular momentum of an orbiting moon. As I pointed out the proper way is to use Lorb + Lspin.
That is in fact the angular momentum around the COG of earth. It is fine to calculate an additional angular momentum for an additional independent/unassociated to the orbital rotation spin.
If you wish to prove Newton meant for the angular momentum of any moon rotating around the COG of any planet to just be Lorb you need to provide evidence he said that. If you can’t you are just making stuff up.
So go ahead extrapolate all you want on this Willard. Join the uniform briefcase drill team and march in perfect order with other morons parroting whatever your daddy told you.
Hunter, Here’s the way NASA engineers do the math. I think you will see that NASA are “spinners” and they’ve been there and back.
Newton did not discuss angular momentum. It did not exist as a concept yet. But he did clearly state that moon rotated on its axis in the same time as it orbited.
For a guy who brags about doing science and numbers, Bill, you sure can throw around a lot of words.
TL;DR.
All three of you morons are avoiding the question I asked.
If Lorb explains all the angular momentum of an orbiting sphere THAT DOES NOT appear to rotate from a random perspective from space when one ignores the spheres motion through space (if you don’t do that then you will see the sphere to be rotating as has been the case with the hundreds of little diagrams you guys have made up); then provide evidence of that fact.
If you cannot do that you morons as you always do are extrapolating beyond the bounds of known science.
This particular moron answered this question
“If you wish to prove Newton meant for the angular momentum of any moon rotating around the COG of any planet to just be Lorb you need to provide evidence he said that.”
by pointing out that it has a FALSE premise.
Newton never discussed angular momentum.
Try to formulate a question that is simple, clear and does not have any built-in false premises.
Hunter wrote:
Hunter, There’s your problem. When defining and measuring rotation and angular momentum, the reference coordinate system must be an inertial reference frame, not any old local coordinate system, such as one fixed to the Earth. From that Earth view, the Moon does not appear to rotate, but, seen from an inertial reference frames, it is rotating. That’s basic aerospace engineering, as I pointed out up thread. Did you even make an effort to go thru that presentation before your post?
Why would Bill read, Eric?
He’s into Audit Mode. Ask sammich after sammich and then declare to be the wiener.
The Master Argument, in SHORT:
(SHORT) The Moon cannot spin because I don’t see it spinning.
Everything else is more or less trolling.
thats why the 3 of you are morons.
You understand the challenge and have no solution for it so you make excuses and continue to believe your view is supported by science.
dumb, dumb, dumb!
Bill,
You’re trick is as simply as Mike Flynn’s:
Abuse until you get a sammich.
You won’t get that sammich.
Cope.
“As to Newton. He did create a model. The model clearly shows the way to calculate the angular momentum of an orbiting moon.”
Nope he never did, Bill. This is something you have imagined!
“As I pointed out the proper way is to use Lorb + Lspin.”
OK. And?
“That is in fact the angular momentum around the COG of earth. It is fine to calculate an additional angular momentum for an additional independent/unassociated to the orbital rotation spin.”
OK. It is fine to use in any case.
“If you wish to prove Newton meant for the angular momentum of any moon rotating around the COG of any planet to just be Lorb you need to provide evidence he said that. If you cant you are just making stuff up.”
Nope we don’t wish to. Since he never said that. And you just imagined it.
Nate says:
“As I pointed out the proper way is to use Lorb + Lspin.”
OK. And?
————————-
And? Whats the matter Nate can’t you read? I asked you twice already that in order to prove your contention. . . .show a proof that the angular momentum of an orbiting moon not observed to be rotating from a random position in outer space (outside the orbit) would only have the angular momentum of “Lorb”. So that is now the 3rd time I have requested your evidence.
p.s. And of course Willard is too much of an idiot to know he was even asked a question or that science demands empirical evidence. . . .so he is more than welcome to stuff his sammich up where the sun don’t shine. As they say one cannot get blood out of a turnip.
I can play that silly game too, Bill:
“An obviously incomplete argument ignoring accumulation of momentum associated with a force.”
Prove it.
Hunter, Your repeated question rests on the definition of “a random position in outer space (outside the orbit)”. It appears that you still don’t understand the concept of an inertial reference frame, that is, a coordinate system fixed in the stars. One must calculate the rotation around the CM using such coordinates. It doesn’t matter where the observation point is is located, since it’s straightforward mathematically to make the transformation from a coordinate system at one point to one fixed at the CM of the body in question. The angular momentum of the body in question will be the same for any inertial reference frame selected.
It’s obvious that a coordinate system fixed in the Earth is not an inertial reference frame, since it rotates wrt the Sun. Selecting a system with one axis pointing from the Earth toward the Moon is also not an inertial reference frame, as that vector rotates as the Moon orbits. In that reference frame, the Moon appears as though it does not rotate as seen from the Earth, but that is a false conclusion and that is the crux of the “non-spinner” cult’s false claim.
“show a proof that the angular momentum of an orbiting moon not observed to be rotating from a random position in outer space (outside the orbit) would only have the angular momentum of ‘Lorb’. So that is now the 3rd time I have requested your evidence.”
At least the question is clear and concise now.
Not a random position. It is the inertial frame of reference. The frame of reference at REST wrt the stars.
As far as Lorb, yes the orbiting Moon that is non-rotating in the inertial frame, has just Lorb and no Lspin.
I discussed why with DREMT, and the definition of L, here. See if you agree or disagree.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-857263
E. Swanson says:
Hunter, Your repeated question rests on the definition of “a random position in outer space (outside the orbit)”. It appears that you still don’t understand the concept of an inertial reference frame, that is, a coordinate system fixed in the stars.
===========================
Swanson your inculcation must have you completely confused. Please produce evidence that the coordinate system must be fixed in the stars in re the moon rotating around the earth. Seems to me if you had any you would have produced such evidence months ago and are instead just throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks.
Nate says:
As far as Lorb, yes the orbiting Moon that is non-rotating in the inertial frame, has just Lorb and no Lspin.
————————-
Nate I didn’t ask for your babble I asked for your proof.
Willard says:
An obviously incomplete argument ignoring accumulation of momentum associated with a force.
Prove it.
————————
Hmmm, you want me to prove that earth is slowing its spin due to a force? All you have to do is Google it Willard. Its widely accepted.
And of course its obvious you are just trying to change the topic because you can’t prove your claim that the moon spins on its own axis.
So as expected.
Bill finally asks a coherent question. Gets answer straight from physics. It doesnt agree with his beliefs.
He can’t explain the flaw in the calculated angular momentum, but he is certain it has one.
Par for the course.
“Please produce evidence that the coordinate system must be fixed in the stars”
Bill tried this ‘logic’ to get out of a speeding ticket.
He said the officer:
‘Please produce evidence that the coordinate system must be fixed to the road.’
He got cuffed.
bill hunter says: Please produce evidence that the coordinate system must be fixed in the stars in re the moon rotating around the earth.
Coordinate systems are arbitrary and generally chosen for convenience of representing the system of interest. A moon-fixed makes a great deal of sense for navigation on or in the near vicinity of the moon. It’s going to make any calculation of interplanetary or interstellar navigation unnecessarily messy.
That is, mathematically one can have a fixed moon and a rotating universe, but as a practical physical model it’s going to be of limited usefulness.
Hunter wrote:
The The evidence is from basic physics, particularly the physics of rotating bodies, such as seen in the motions of a gimbaled gyroscope or a Foucault pendulum.
Please take the time to understand this quote from the Wiki article:
The Moon rotates and thus exhibits those “gyroscopic properties”, especially “rigidity in space”. That rotational motion is not related to the Moon’s orbital revolutions around the Earth. An inertial coordinate system can be used to measure the Moon’s rotation and those measurements prove that the Moon rotates once a month.
And Newtons Bucket type experiments show measurable physical effects of rotation are all relative to the inertial frame of the stars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucket_argument
Nate says:
So as expected.
——————————-
Indeed as expected Nate. As expected you as usual try to weasel out of providing any kind of science based argument in support for your point of view.
Mark B says:
Coordinate systems are arbitrary and generally chosen for convenience of representing the system of interest. A moon-fixed makes a great deal of sense for navigation on or in the near vicinity of the moon. It’s going to make any calculation of interplanetary or interstellar navigation unnecessarily messy.
That is, mathematically one can have a fixed moon and a rotating universe, but as a practical physical model it’s going to be of limited usefulness.
====================
Indeed, but whatever you choose one must still recognize that the moon rotates around the axis that is at the COG of earth. While arbitrarily selecting the axis at the center of the moon resolves the problem of interstellar travel messiness it isn’t as accurate unless you also consider the moon’s rotation around an axis at the COG of earth.
E. Swanson says:
The The evidence is from basic physics, particularly the physics of rotating bodies, such as seen in the motions of a gimbaled gyroscope or a Foucault pendulum.
==========================
Swanson none of these examples are selective between the moon rotating around its own internal axis or around and external axis located at the COG of earth.
As usual your argument dies on the failure to recognize that indeed the moon rotates around an external axis.
Hunter wrote:
What don’t you understand about the quote and reference:
“All spinning objects have gyroscopic properties. The main properties….are rigidity in space and precession.”
The Moon is rotating (“spinning”) independent of it’s orbit around the Earth. The axis of that rotation is not perpendicular to the orbit plane, but points toward a fixed area in the stars. The distance between the Moon and the barycenter changes as it orbits, it’s not a fixed distance as required for your “rotation around an external axis”. As a result, the combined motions or rotating and orbiting can not be described as a simple rotation about a fixed axis passing thru the Earth-Moon barycenter.
Swanson you are trying to establish a negative proof.
can’t be done. science requires a positive physical relationship that can be and is done by Madhavi and kinematics.
your arguments for the physical existence of a spin at best beggars astronomical statistical odds against it existing in the known universe.
at worst it advocates for an impossible design of the universe.
but that would hardly be the first time science has similarly run off the rails.
the lack of any positive evidence of your design is verified by your failure and the universal failure of all its advocates in producing any such science-based positive evidence beyond denial of the physical evidence of a ‘rotation’ around the earth’s cog. all variation on that rotation can be explained via rotations of the earth/moon system around other objects along with the forward momentum of the moon. all positive physical relationships of estimatable magnitude.
bill, positive proof physical evidence of our moon’s rotation on its own axis is provided by observed lunar sunrise and sunset just like on Earth. You can properly count those lunar sunrises and find one complete rotation on the lunar N-S axis per orbit of Earth.
duh!
Hunter, You and the no-spin cult keep using the term “rotation” to refer to orbiting, while ignoring the basic physics of the Moon’s rotation wrt the stars. You claim that:
s Ball4 pointed out, yet again, the obvious fact is that the Moon rotates from the perspective of the Sun and the stars. That’s not “denial of the physical evidence of a ‘rotation’ around the earth’s cog”, it’s a basic fact resulting from the orbital motion of the Moon’s CM relative to the Earth’s CM, responding to gravity. Are you claiming that the “spinners” are denying gravity? Then, you claim that:
So, after all that BS, where’s your mathematical model using only your “rotations”? I gave you a link to a lecture about the math used by aerospace engineers to describe the orbiting of a mass, such as a satellite, and the rotation of that mass. The same math can be also applied to the Earth-Moon system. Indeed, that’s the math used by NASA to travel to the Moon, orbit it, and then return home. Take a look at page 170 of the lecture PDF where a trip to the Moon and return is presented in detail.
E. Swanson says:
Hunter, You and the no-spin cult keep using the term “rotation” to refer to orbiting, while ignoring the basic physics of the Moon’s rotation wrt the stars. You claim that:
======================
Swanson still your sole argument is an attempt to argue from ignorance and prove a negative. Further such an argument flies in the face of kinematics effectively claiming Madhavi’s rotation around an external axis is NOT a rotation from respect to the stars. . . .simply proving you either completely lack the ability visualize Madhavi’s rotation around an external axis, or are too dumb to understand what it looks like from outer space.
then no doubt you will ignorantly start complaining about imperfect circles and the speed variations brought on about that. . . .and you do so without a single thread of any science to suggest that is a disqualifier. . . .because if it were a disqualifier then Madhavi isn’t teaching anything useful as there are no perfect circles, no balls on strings that have some stretch etc.
I only drop in here occasionally to see if you guys have learned anything yet. . . .most likely you let your ‘wishes’ get in the way of reality. . . .perhaps you smoke dope or something, I don’t know. But what is clear is you are really confused.
E. Swanson says:
I gave you a link to a lecture about the math used by aerospace engineers to describe the orbiting of a mass, such as a satellite, and the rotation of that mass. The same math can be also applied to the Earth-Moon system. Indeed, thats the math used by NASA to travel to the Moon, orbit it, and then return home. Take a look at page 170 of the lecture PDF where a trip to the Moon and return is presented in detail.
====================
This is just the confusion you have. the math doesn’t change because the axis changes. Recognizing the rotation you perceive to be around an axis in the COG of earth instead of your imaginary one in the center of the moon doesn’t change the motion in any way. If one launches a mission for or to a satellite from earth all the motions would be both the same and in need of some accountability.
Your argument has no point. You may as well be howling at the moon.
> Hmmm, you want me to prove that earth is slowing its spin due to a force?
No, Bill. I want you to prove this claim:
Please stop playing dumb.
Hunter “drops by” to post not 1 but 2 blasts of BS while ignoring the basic facts of physics I presented. Hunter completely slides by the basic requirement to provide the necessary math to describe the “no spin” cult’s point of view of the Moon’s orbit and rotation in space as he writes:
Some accountability? That’s pure BS, as the math required to describe the Moon’s orbit as well as the motion(s) required to launch and operate a satellite provides such information in exquisite detail. HERE’s ANOTHER EXAMPLE of the basic math and that’s just for the CM of a vehicle.
Want more? Look back ~50 years to NASA’s Apollo program. Consider the accuracy required, as shown in this chart, such as the “Space-Fixed Velocity” in ft/sec with precision given to 1/10 f/s out of ~35,500. To calculate those trajectories required double precision math using computers which were the best available at the time.
It’s the Math, moron. Without that, you are just blowing smoke out your rear end.
E. Swanson says:
Hunter drops by to post not 1 but 2 blasts of BS while ignoring the basic facts of physics I presented. Hunter completely slides by the basic requirement to provide the necessary math to describe the no spin cults point of view of the Moons orbit and rotation in space as he writes:
If one launches a mission for or to a satellite from earth all the motions would be both the same and in need of some accountability.
Some accountability? Thats pure BS, as the math required to describe the Moons orbit as well as the motion(s) required to launch and operate a satellite provides such information in exquisite detail. HEREs ANOTHER EXAMPLE of the basic math and thats just for the CM of a vehicle.
———————————
Swanson I swear you are a total moron! The moon rotates around the earth’s axis at the precise rate you claim it rotates around an internal axis. How could the ‘math’ be any different!
All you are doing is breaking down a single motion into two parts with different axes without even nudging the moon.
The formula doesn’t change so the math doesn’t change.
None of your math is dependent upon where one assumes the axes to lie! This is simple enough for a 6th grader, 8th at the most, to understand yet after months and months and months you still don’t grasp that simple fact and you continue to pursue stupid stuff on the assumption that something is different in the math if you recognize it as a single motion of rotation around the earth’s axis.
Hunter continues to display his ignorance. The Moon is orbiting and it’s orbit is an ellipse. That path is the track which the Center of Mass follows. Obviously, it can’t be “rotating” about a axis (actually, a point) fixed in the Earth, since the distance between that point and the Moon changes as the Moon moves thru it’s orbital path. The rotation of a solid body, the Moon in this case or perhaps another satellite, is a separate motion. The axis of that rotation is defined by the measurable fact of the rotation and that axis represents a vector fixed in space. In addition, the Moon’s rotational axis is NOT PERPENDICULAR to the orbit plane, thus your cult’s simple model of a solid body with a fixed point of rotation in the Earth can’t explain the well proven facts.
Troll, you clowns have no math, you have nothing to show. The Moon rotates once an orbit.
E. Swanson says:
Obviously, it can’t be “rotating” about a axis (actually, a point) fixed in the Earth, since the distance between that point and the Moon changes as the Moon moves thru it’s orbital path.
—————————–
To remind you Swanson the specific request for replies in this thread were to not just make stupid declarations but instead provide scientific evidence of whatever your claim is.
So in your view the ball on a string analogy should also not be considered a rotation because the string stretches to some degree as does every other substance. Conclusion: you must think Madhavi’s kinematics is all total hogwash as well right? And all you are going to offer as truth is a stupid declaration of what you consider to be ‘obvious’?
> Conclusion: you must think Madhavi’s kinematics is all total hogwash as well right?
You really are not very good at this, Bill.
Here’s Kiddo’s favorite part of her handout:
Nevermind for the moment that it’s not the most relevant part of the handout (it’s a motion about a fixed point that moves), do you see any stretching there? I hope not, for there can’t be. In a rigid body, all the particles remain in the same relationship with one another.
Which isn’t how the Moon behaves, for we know that there’s one side that is being stretched by the Earth.
Willard says:
A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion. It can also be observed that in a translation all the particles forming the body move along parallel paths. If these paths are straight lines[, t]he motion is said to be a rectilinear translation (Fig 1); If the paths are curved lines, the motion is a curvilinear translation.
——————————-
Never mind that the ‘spinner’ idea of zero central axial rotation is precisely the only example shown by Madhavi as examples of curvilinear translation. A she shows rotation on an external axis as the primary example of the ‘spinner’ idea of coincidental synchronous rotation.
LMAO!!!
Again you join with Swanson with stupid declarations to support your view, declarations embellished and turned on their head from the very examples you are looking at.
Stupid, stupid, stupid!
[…]
In this motion, the particles forming the rigid body move in parallel planes along circles centered on the same fixed axis (Fig 1). If this axis, called the axis of rotation, intersects the rigid body[, t]he particles located on the axis have zero velocity and zero acceleration.
Nevermind for the moment that it’s not the most relevant part of the handout (it’s a motion about a fixed point that moves), do you see any stretching there? I hope not, for there can’t be. In a rigid body, all the particles remain in the same relationship with one another.
Which isn’t how the Moon behaves, for we know that there’s one side that is being stretched by the Earth.
> Which isn’t how the Moon behaves,
Check this out, Bill:
https://www.space.com/26246-lunar-tide-seen-from-space.html
Astronomy is great, you should study it one day.
yes willard astronomy is fun to study.
i am happy to see you learning, especially when it is of the rigid and controlled nature of the gravitational forces that result in the moon’s pure rotation around the earth.
> the rigid and controlled nature of the gravitational forces
We were talking about rigid bodies, Bill. Your switcheroo is not that hard to notice. Take a step back and reconsider the concept of rotation, which strictly speaking ought to preserve isometry.
willard we are discussing science. i doubt i have ever heard of ‘strictly speaking’ being a measurement in science. Is this something new? If so how is it described in terms of limitations?
Here’s what we were discussing, Bill:
Hence why I quoted Kiddo’s favorite part from her handbook.
Please, do keep up.
Hunter, In my last reply, I stated several facts. Since you didn’t take exception to any of those factual statements, I presume that you agree with them. In addition, since Madhavi’s course notes describe only plane motion, that is, motions in a 2-D plane, the concepts presented do not apply to 3-D situations, such as the Moon. The Moon’s motions can not be described in only 2 dimensions because the axis of rotation for the Moon and the postulated external axis of rotation around the Earth-Moon barycenter (which is perpendicular to the orbit plane), are NOT PARALLEL.
Willard says:
Here’s what we were discussing, Bill:
Conclusion: you must think Madhavi’s kinematics is all total hogwash as well right?
Hence why I quoted Kiddo’s favorite part from her handbook.
Please, do keep up.
———————
You are just stumbling around in a daze Willard. That comment was not directed at you and thus has absolutely nothing to do with our part of the conversation. Try to keep up!
> That comment was not directed at you
Sure, Bill. Here’s stumbling:
(VLAD) Conclusion: you must think Godot’s kinematics is all total hogwash as well right?
(ESTR) You really are not very good at this, Vlad. Here’s Pozzo’s favorite part of her handout
[…]
(VLAD) the rigid and controlled nature of the gravitational forces
(ESTR) We were talking about rigid bodies, Vlad. Your switcheroo is not that hard to notice.
(VLAD) We were discussing science, Estragon.
(ESTR) Here’s what we were discussing: Conclusion: you must think Godot’s kinematics is all total hogwash as well right?
(VLAD) You are just stumbling around in a daze Estragon. That comment was not directed at you
***
The point you’re missing is that Kiddo’s the one who introduced Madhavi. If you want to spit on her handout, be my guest. Only Kiddo needs that resource.
You need to coordinate with other Moon Dragon cranks!
E. Swanson says:
Hunter, In my last reply, I stated several facts. Since you didnt take exception to any of those factual statements, I presume that you agree with them. In addition, since Madhavi’s course notes describe only plane motion, that is, motions in a 2-D plane, the concepts presented do not apply to 3-D situations, such as the Moon. The Moons motions can not be described in only 2 dimensions because the axis of rotation for the Moon and the postulated external axis of rotation around the Earth-Moon barycenter (which is perpendicular to the orbit plane), are NOT PARALLEL.
——————–
A. I have no idea what in your discourse you consider to be facts, thus this comment is impossible to deal with. I said that where you chose to place an axis has absolutely no impact on the navigational problems regarding the moon.
Also it has no impact on the calculation of angular momentum for a pure rotation as defined by Madhavi.
What a spinner must account for is any imagined spin used to convert that pure rotation into a non-rotation, otherwise depicted by Madhavi (Figure 2(a)) as a curvilinear translation with a fixed attitude for the moon from the perspective of the stars while the moon still follows a curved path.
B. Madhavi’s pure rotation concepts should not be viewed as excluding all other motions Swanson. When you get into engineered gear boxes for example you can find a mixture of motions thought up by visionary people to produce tools that do quite amazing things. Just because you can’t imagine how Madhavi’s concepts are to be applied in engineering objects in no way breaks Madhavi’s teachings, nor limits it to a very small universe is just a glaring example of how naive, unsophisticated, and unlearned you are.
C. Madhavi’s course is a basic course in kinematics and a 2d representation of perfect circles is sufficient when added to other engineering problems of dealing with imperfect representations that result in a gravitationally driven precession or poor tolerances that result in a vibration or wobble, or elasticity of parts that results in different trajectories that need to be considered in terms of the materials and forces used to keep things from flying apart.
Complications are what sets apart academic concepts from professional experience in absolutely every profession. These sort of problems are the rule rather than the exception and solutions to them are indeed what sets professionals who earn that title years of experience later than their academic graduation date.
In the academy you learn the tools, in the professions you learn when to use a tool and when to use something else. Academia is like a carpenter who has only learned to use a hammer, thus everything begins to take on the appearance of a nail. This discussion will someday be seen in exactly that way.
> I have no idea what in your discourse you consider to be facts
Read again, Bill, this time more slowly:
(Fact 1) The Moon is orbiting and [its] orbit is an ellipse.
(Fact 2) That path is the track which the Center of Mass follows.
(Fact 3) The Moon cannot be “rotating” about a axis (actually, a point) fixed in the Earth, since the distance between that point and the Moon changes as the Moon moves thru its orbital path.
(Fact 4) The rotation of a solid body, the Moon in this case or perhaps another satellite, is a separate motion.
(Fact 5) The axis of that rotation is defined by the measurable fact of the rotation and that axis represents a vector fixed in space.
(Fact 6) The Moon’s rotational axis is NOT PERPENDICULAR to the orbit plane.
(Fact 7) The overly simplistic model of a solid body with a fixed point of rotation in the Earth, provided by Moon Dragon cranks, cannot explain the well proven facts.
Please tell me if you need me to dumb it down even more for you.
Willard says:
> I have no idea what in your discourse you consider to be facts
Read again, Bill, this time more slowly:
(Fact 1) The Moon is orbiting and [its] orbit is an ellipse.
(Fact 2) That path is the track which the Center of Mass follows.
(Fact 3) The Moon cannot be “rotating” about a axis (actually, a point) fixed in the Earth, since the distance between that point and the Moon changes as the Moon moves thru its orbital path.
(Fact 4) The rotation of a solid body, the Moon in this case or perhaps another satellite, is a separate motion.
(Fact 5) The axis of that rotation is defined by the measurable fact of the rotation and that axis represents a vector fixed in space.
(Fact 6) The Moon’s rotational axis is NOT PERPENDICULAR to the orbit plane.
(Fact 7) The overly simplistic model of a solid body with a fixed point of rotation in the Earth, provided by Moon Dragon cranks, cannot explain the well proven facts.
Please tell me if you need me to dumb it down even more for you.
————————
Well once again you are responding to a statement that was not directed at you. But since you have declared as facts a number of items (I will allow the person I did address to agree with your list or offer another one) I will respond. I will first note you did not provide any support for any of these facts whatsoever as was the request to do so in this subthread.
However that said I can agree with what you call Facts 1,2, and 6.
And I will acknowledge that Fact 5 is at least partly true if one considers that it also precesses and thus is not fixed in the long term.
3 and 4, and 7 is what I would expect you to provide some scientific calculations so as to prove they are true otherwise I will continue to consider them completely unproven. I am not a moron so I am not going to rely upon pure appeals to authority or unsupported allegations. All of you morons who think subservience should come from loud bleating alone will simply have to actually do some science.
> I will first note you did not provide any support for any of these facts whatsoever
You are not entitled to room service, Bill. Perhaps if you took the effort to formulate whats your problem with 3-4-5-7 youd risk getting the sammiches you keep requesting. Heres a very simple schematic to get you started:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon
For now, Id like you to acknowledge that your I have no idea what in your discourse you consider to be facts was a bit silly.
Willard says:
You are not entitled to room service, Bill. Perhaps if you took the effort to formulate whats your problem with 3-4-5-7 youd risk getting the sammiches you keep requesting. Heres a very simple schematic to get you started:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon
For now, Id like you to acknowledge that your I have no idea what in your discourse you consider to be facts was a bit silly.
——————–
Room service? Sounds more like an excuse for being a credulous air head.
“That issue has been settled. The moon does not rotate on its own axis.”
Because some dudes named FTOP and csaitruth, some guy on Wikipedia, some dude on ThoughtCo, some guy on an airplane forum, said some things that, taken out of context, agree with me!
What these ‘authorities’ say nullifies standard physics, kinematics, astronomy.
Really any established science can be discarded, as needed.
There is nothing the internet + gullible people can’t accomplish!
That issue has been settled…the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
Add another to the list of ‘renowned’authorities whose declarations that ordinary physics is all wrong must be believed!
Geraint Hughes
Thanks internet!
“That issue has been settled”
Yes readers, DREMT truly is a deeply insecure 5th grade bully.
…when observed from the accelerated frame.
As we all re-learned these last 4 years:
The more a lie is repeated, the truer it becomes!
Don’t like being ridiculed? Stop saying ridiculous things!
The concept is really quite simple.
That issue has been settled. The moon does not rotate on its own axis…
…when observed from the accelerated frame.
Oh, Ball4 too! Why not. All the desperately obsessed stalkers in one place.
Not stalkers, just critical, informed commenters repeatedly correcting DREMT’s wrong physics as Gordon writes: “a persons orientation will change through 360 degrees per lap.” inertially just like our moon.
As soon as you try to argue that the moon is rotating on its own axis “inertially” or “wrt inertial space”, what you are actually saying is that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion like the “moon on the right”. So this does not affect the argument of those who claim that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion like the “moon on the left”, i.e the “Non-Spinners”. You won’t understand, and will just try to twist my words. Oh well.
No twisting words is necessary DREMT, I quote your words verbatim agreeing with Gordon: “An object that is rotating about an external axis, without rotating about an internal axis, changes its orientation through 360 degrees.”
…and of course, that is correct.
Good, DREMT now admits directly to agreeing with Gordon. That’s some progress in learning for DREMT.
Since Gordon and I have always agreed that the moon does not rotate on its own axis, regardless of reference frame, there is nothing to “admit”.
In agreeing with Gordon, DREMT now admits: our moon “changes its orientation through 360 degrees.”
Again, nothing to “admit” – of course it does! As does any object that is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about an internal axis.
Good, try to stick with that DREMT, like Gordon wrote our moon and: “a persons orientation will change through 360 degrees per lap.”
That’s all DREMT needs to now admit agreement in making progress.
As does any object that is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about an internal axis.
Good, DREMT is sticking to the correct debate conclusion, like “of course” Gordon wrote our moon and: “a persons orientation will change through 360 degrees per lap.”
Keep up the good work DREMT sticking to that conclusion, even you can figure things out correctly. Now on to the next debate.
As does any object that is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about an internal axis…
Keep sticking to your agreement with Gordon DREMT…so that many others can see you doing so.
Yes, everyone can see that I agree with Gordon, who also argues that the moon is not rotating on its own axis, regardless of reference frame.
Our moon and a persons orientation will change through 360 degrees per lap. is now the prevailing DREMT view.
…because it is rotating, but not on its own axis.
Good, consistently sticking with a conceded view on moon motion, now in agreement, DREMT admitting our moon and “a persons orientation will change through 360 degrees per lap.” will perhaps improve DREMTs credibility just a wee bit from about zero.
Odd, because I have not changed my viewpoint one iota. Ball4 is probably just trolling, though.
DREMT has conceded the moon changes its orientation 360 or once per lap of Earth so that’s way more than an iota’ that is in fact the whole moon motion game won by those that support the change in orientation once per earthen lap & now formally conceded by DREMT.
You are seriously demented, Ball4.
DREMT’s new view on moon motion is what DREMT wrote not me.
our moon “changes its orientation through 360 degrees.”
Stick with that view DREMT and you will go far.
Seriously demented, or just trolling…who knows?
Here is one of things DREMT claims is settled.
“An orbit (without axial rotation) involves the object changing its orientation through 360 degrees.”
It is settled, but not in his favor. This is absolutely FALSE and simply made up.
As demonstrated by DREMT himself:
“An orbit is a regular, repeating path that one object in space takes around another one.”
There is nothing in the definition about orientation!
DREMT knows this to be the case, but he lies about it anyway.
Yes, that is another debate. For now though on the moon debate or any other object lapping an object while changing its orientation thru 360 degrees as DREMT does now admit: our moon “changes its orientation through 360 degrees.” along with Gordon: “a persons orientation will change through 360 degrees per lap.” since DREMT agrees: “of course it does!”.
“Yes, that is another debate…”
…and on that other debate, Ball4, you must remember that “revolution” is defined as “rotation about an external axis”, and “rotation about an external axis” (with no rotation about an internal axis), is motion as per the “moon on the left”. Orientation included. An object that is “revolving” or “orbiting” is also taking a regular, repeating path in space around another one, of course. That path is a rotation about the other object.
> “rotation about an external axis” (with no rotation about an internal axis), is motion as per the “moon on the left”
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo. After all these years you still fail to understand that there are many ways to look at your favorite GIF.
And you still use your silly wording instead of speaking of spin and orbit!
Again DREMT our moon’s orientation does change 360 as you point out once per lap so it is settled for the moon when you agree along with Gordon writing our moon and: “a persons orientation will change through 360 degrees per lap.” DREMT has even solidly agreed: “of course it does!”.
The debate is over since DREMT has solidly agreed “of course”: our moon’s orientation will change through 360 degrees per lap.
I am glad you agree the debate is over, Ball4. The issue is settled. The moon does not rotate on its own axis, regardless of reference frame.
DREMT the moon motion issue IS settled, DREMT is no longer wrong about our moon motion in “of course” agreeing with Gordon that our moon changes in orientation 360 per lap of Earth. More correctly Willard 4:14pm et. al. can now separate off the “moon” motion debate as settled with that result & enter into another separate debate.
The issue is settled. The moon does not rotate on its own axis, regardless of reference frame.
Settled with DREMT agreeing with Gordon that our moon changes in orientation 360 per lap of Earth. It IS motion so simple even DREMT understands.
…because it is rotating, but not on its own axis.
“An object that is ‘revolving’ or ‘orbiting’ is also taking a regular, repeating path in space around another one, of course.
YES, but no need for the word ALSO. That is the definition.
“That path is a rotation about the other object.”
Well let’s see.
1. He has never been able to produce an DEFINITION of ORBIT that agrees with this.
2. He knows very well that ORBITS are elliptical. He knows very well that KINEMATICS defines rotation as CIRCULAR MOTION around an AXIS, as per HIS sources.
Thus an ORBIT cannot in general be a ROTATION.
“That path is a rotation about the other object.” is obviously FALSE, a LIE.
Why does DREMT keep perpetuating a FALSEHOOD?
Our moon and “a persons orientation will change through 360 degrees per lap.” is now the prevailing DREMT view.
Yes, Nate 6:10pm, DREMT has conceded moon motion debate and moved on. There are still specific DREMT falsehoods left to debate though, just not the moon motion since DREMT has now agreed our moon and “a persons orientation will change through 360 degrees per lap.” is now the prevailing DREMT view.
Nothing has changed, Ball4. Those “Spinners” who argue that an orbit is not a rotation about an external axis need to argue with those “Spinners” that argue the moon is both rotating about an external axis and rotating about an internal axis. We know from previous experience though, under no circumstances will “Spinner” argue against “Spinner”.
DREMT has changed views! DREMT has now formally agreed in writing that our moon and “a persons orientation will change through 360 degrees per lap.” which has recently become the prevailing DREMT view. DREMT shows no sign of going back on his written words.
No, my view is exactly the same as it has always been.
OK prove it, then show us a link from 3 years ago where your prevailing view was: our moon and “a persons orientation will change through 360 degrees per lap.”
That DREMT view really is a recent change, a concession, and from which DREMT shows no backing down.
Here is one from 2 years ago:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/july-2019-was-not-the-warmest-on-record/#comment-374564
Nothing much there, Kiddo, except one name drop to add:
(NAME DROPS) Tesla. Henry Perigal. That csa truther dude. Aleksandar Tomic.
Looks like Aleksandar (not Aleksandr) is a mechanical engineer, btw – not “at least an astronomer”:
http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/1450-5584/2013/1450-55841301135T.pdf
What is in the linked comment is what Ball4 asked for proof of.
Mention of Tomic was further down the discussion. He is an astronomer:
https://acaatomic.angelfire.com/ALEKSANDAR__TOMIC_-_CV-_06.pdf
Aleksandar indeed got a MSc in astrophysics when he was almost 60 years old, Kiddo. Still better than Joe, I suppose.
In that thread you say:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/july-2019-was-not-the-warmest-on-record/#comment-378797
Do you still believe that claim? It’s stronger than any I can find in the Master Argument. In fact you already conceded that it was false when you claim:
(PURE) One should not describe as a general plane motion that which can be described as a pure rotation or a pure translation. *Shows an engineer handout*.
It is along the same lines as: the only way you can say the moon is rotating on its own axis is if you define “orbital motion without axial rotation” as motion like the “moon on the right”. It conveys the same basic meaning, but in a slightly different way.
“What is in the linked comment is what Ball4 asked for proof of.”
No. DREMT’s first try fails.
What I asked for was proof DREMT’s prevailing view 3 years ago was: “our moon and “a persons orientation will change through 360 degrees per lap.””
DREMT links to show DREMT’s prevailing view 2 years ago included nothing of the sort. NONE of those words in DREMT’s comment or any other DREMT comment in that link. A search on 360 shows Gordon back then did have that view in comments under the top post.
What DREMT has actually proven so far is DREMT’s view has actually recently changed to agree with Gordon:
“our moon and “a persons orientation will change through 360 degrees per lap.””
So keep looking DREMT. You will still fail.
The comment was:
“Norman, basically, you regard any change in orientation wrt to the fixed stars as axial rotation. That’s where you are going wrong.
Orbital motion necessarily involves a change in orientation wrt to the fixed stars, but that change in orientation is not axial rotation.
Think of a ball on a rope swinging around. The rope prevents the ball from rotating on its own axis. For the ball to rotate on its own axis, the rope would have to be wrapping around the ball. This doesn’t happen as the ball swings around (orbits). But as the ball orbits, it is changing orientation. So the ball is changing orientation as it orbits, but not rotating on its own axis.”
I am happy that this is sufficient evidence to prove my position has not changed, I assume any rational readers will agree with that, and I leave it at that.
So DREMT is laughingly forced to change comment links, to one 11 days earlier. Which STILL does not contain DREMT’s recently changed view:
“our moon and “a persons orientation will change through 360 degrees per lap.””
What DREMT has, again, actually proved is DREMT’s view has now recently changed to agree with Gordon’s long held view “360 degrees per lap” of Earth, so keep looking DREMT. You will still fail.
I changed nothing, Ball4. The comment I linked to is the comment I just quoted. At least that is what I intended, and that is what comes up when I click on the link.
Doesn’t matter DREMT, you still haven’t linked or copied DREMT’s recently changed view:
“our moon and “a persons orientation will change through 360 degrees per lap.””
to prove DREMT held this view 3 years ago as I asked. So keep looking DREMT. You will still fail.
Just going to ignore you now, Ball4, OK?
DREMT has been using the same illogic for ~ 2 y.
Prior to that he was using the ‘primitive’ illogic that newcomer’s use and Gordon still uses.
That is ‘Look at the Moon. Its not rotating!’
IOW using the rotating Earth-centered frame of reference, and observing that in that frame, the Moon is of course, not rotating.
As Ball4 calls it, the accelerated frame of reference.
That is how DREMT got FIXATED on the erroneous idea that the Moon isnt rotating, but he evolved to the position that it is only wrt its OWN axis.
But his logic fails for the real Moon whose motion all agree cannot be explained without axial rotation.
So he simply lies about it now.
And he is perfectly OK with being a liar and a hypocrite.
“More utter nonsense from the spinner crowd.”
As we can see, that seems to be all they have left.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
We got numerical models:
https://www.wired.com/2012/12/how-do-you-model-the-earth-moon-sun-system/
There’s even free code inside!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Do you really really think this is a true, factual statement?
“Orbital motion necessarily involves a change in orientation”
Do you really really think you have DEMONSTRATED that?
Where? How?
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
Nate, Newton’s Bucket Argument simply argues that the moon rotates in respect to outer space. Nobody disputes that.
The moon rotates around an axis through the earth’s COG.
You want to modify Newton’s observation by invoking a separate rotation in relationship to another axis while at the same time denying that the moon ‘rotates’ around the earth’s COG. Newton’s Bucket argument does not support such a notion.
> The moon does not technically rotate in its travel around the earth as shown by the fact that the same side always faces the earth.
Not sure what you mean by “technically,” Doc.
Care to clarify?
Willard, please stop trolling.
norman…” Montagnier says that a healthy immune system can kill off the virus in a few weeks. It does not mean it is harmless”.
It does mean that when you consider his other statements about AIDS. He now thinks AIDS is caused by oxidative stress related to lifestyle. In the longer video I linked to, he goes further. He claims that every human encounters HIV from time to time and if their immune systems are healthy it will get rid of the HIV.
Lanka is even more specific and he knows more than Montagnier about viruses. He claims there is no scientific p.roof that HIV exists. In the longer video, it is admitted that at no time did the Montagnier team see HIV on an electron microscope.
HIV and covid are retroviruses and the theory is based on a shaky foundation introduced in the 1970s. It was initially used to find a viral cause for cancer and that failed. One pioneer in the early days warned scientists not to read too much into the basic enzyme, reverse transcrip.tase, used as evidence of a retrovirus. He said that because RT is a common enzyme in many other bodily functions.
HIV sounds harmless to me and the immune system takes care of other viral infections regularly in many humans by getting rid of the flu, SARS 2002, the bird flu, the swine flu, mad cow disease, and now covid.
There is absolutely no scientific evidence to suggest we are dealing with a virus that is dangerous to 99.9% of any population. The politicians panicked based on a fraudulent unvalidated model p.rojection and now they cannot back off without looking absolutely ignorant.
Very few politicians I have heard can talk without emotional bs. They are always p.raising front line workers as heroes, urging us to think of the vulnerable, and guilting us out about infecting family and friends. Few can talk objectively about the reality, based on the data.
Gordon Robertson
I have already posted rational points why Lanka is a lunatic with zero credibility. You ignore the points and continue on.
Why do you pretend that you are debating issues when you are not. You post your bad ideas over and over. When corrected you ignore the correction then a few months later you repeat.
Lanka with measles. First there is something that is transmissible from one person to another that causes the disease called measles, it must reproduce since it spreads. Then you have vaccines based upon a dead or weakened version of measles and they work. If no virus or disease existed the vaccine based upon this virus would not work. The reality is it did and does work. Lanka is an idiot, no reason to suggest he has rational thought. He may have at one time, not he is a crackpot without logic or reason.
You state there is no evidence of Corona-virus. You just will not accept any. That does not mean none exists it just means you are stupid and unable to process information that goes against your idiot beliefs.
I had this “non-existent” virus. You are an idiot. I think you are one of the dumb ones that even if you get real sick you will deny the reality of the virus.
You listen to lunatics and idiots and then you become one yourself. Best defense against this is to quick thinking these people are rational intelligent people. They are liars and dishonest. They will not accept evidence as scientists would. They create little cults (like you belong to) and get money selling products to the members.
“When will vaccine refuseniks see sense? From the anti-vaxxer solicitor who got Covid, said it would be just like a cold but was dead 10 days later to the tragic bodybuilder with a ‘belief in his own immortality’ – how sceptics are paying the ultimate price”
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-9957985/When-Covid-vaccine-refuseniks-sense-jab.html
Death rate under 70 is 1:10000. You can drag out as many cases of individual tragedy as you like but that doesn’t alter the basic fact.
“There were 654 deaths involving coronavirus (COVID-19) registered in the latest week (week ending 20 August 2021), accounting for 5.7% of all deaths in the UK. This is an increase from 652 deaths in the week before.”
Ken
I am not sure where you got that statistic from. The current death rate in US seems to be much higher for much lower age groups.
I will post a link, hopefully the correct data comes up. It is Deaths from Covid in USA in August 2021.
Looks like about 1 in 5 of all the deaths are from Covid for the age group 50-64 year old group. It shows much younger people now dying from it.
https://tinyurl.com/55hm39k5
You can’t trust most of what is said about the data.
Here in Canuckstan the media headlines are all screaming about the majority of cases being unvaccinated.
Source Health Canada and you find that this statement is true … but … and its a big BUT, the data compares cases from December 2020 and most of us did not get access to vaccine till April … during which there was a peak in cases.
In the US, 1.6% of the population who have tested positive have died. It is estimated that only about half the people who have contracted COVID have been tested, so the mortality rate is less than 1%. Also, this wave is peaking now.
https://everytownresearch.org/report/gun-violence-and-covid-19-in-2020-a-year-of-colliding-crises/
“The United States has seen the collision of two major public health crises over the past year: COVID-19 and gun violence.”
That’s propaganda, Richard. Gun violence has been dropping over the last two decades inversely proportional to increase of gun ownership.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-deaths-by-country
“Brazil has the highest number of gun deaths in the world, with a total of 43,200 out of the 250,000 worldwide a gun death rate of 21.9 per 100,000 Brazilian citizens. The United States has the second-highest number of gun deaths with 37,200.”
“How does the US compare with other countries?
There were 14,400 gun-related homicides in 2019.
Killings involving a gun accounted for nearly three quarters of all homicides in the US in that year.”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-41488081
“You cant trust most of what is said about the data.”
Yep. Thats the ultimate argument of people who cannot win on the facts, Ken. It is the argument that Flat Earthers use.
Here’s a view of the percent of US weekly deaths attributed to COVID-19. “Week of Year” index starts in 2020. The latest wave is definitely hitting middle age folks harder than previous waves.
PercentOfUSWeeklyCovidDeathsByAge.png
“Big Trouble in the Tropical Troposphere”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6VM41-v2gg
“For nearly half a century the climate computer models have said that if you want to see warming, look at the “Tropical Troposphere,” the portion of the atmosphere above the very bottom but below the stratosphere, and the part of it over the tropics. But as Dr. John Robson explains in this Climate Discussion Nexus “Crystal Ball” video, actual measurements, by balloons and satellites, consistently show there’s far less warming there than predicted. And while activist scientists say never mind the data, the theory must be right, we say if the facts don’t fit the prediction, the hypothesis is refuted.”
Refers and interviews John Christy.
https://youtu.be/n6VM41-v2gg
> as Dr. John Robson explains
The name rings a bell:
http://www.davidanderson.ca/speaker-bio-dr-john-robson/
DAMN YOU, ACTIVIST SCIENTISTS!
As John Christy was interviewed and provided a viewpoint, I am surprised you did not mention him. This is UAH after all.
Mind you, this is the idiot Willard we are talking about, so no surprise really.
I just showed that you blundered on a fairly simple truth table and you have yet to acknowledge your misunderstanding of the interpretation of the NULL trick in SQL, dummy.
You’re citing the propaganda of a fairly known Freedom Fighter on the Canadian scene.
Actually I was pointing out the John Cristy contribution. And 3 value logic goes much further than SQL but you either don’t know that or are an idiot.
Actually I was pointing out that you were citing a Freedom Fighter, and it’s three-valued logics with an S, dummy.
How many operators are there in them, btw?
You are the idiot, not me.
“Where Boolean logic has 2^2 = 4 unary operators, the addition of a third value in ternary logic leads to a total of 3^3 = 27 distinct operators on a single input value. Similarly, where Boolean logic has 2*22 = 16 distinct binary operators (operators with 2 inputs), ternary logic has 3^33 = 19,683 such operators”
“Where Boolean logic has 2^2 = 4 unary operators, the addition of a third value in ternary logic leads to a total of 3^3 = 27 distinct operators on a single input value. Similarly, where Boolean logic has 2*2^2 = 16 distinct binary operators (operators with 2 inputs), ternary logic has 3^33 = 19,683 such operators”
Damn parser.
“Where Boolean logic has 2^2 = 4 unary operators, the addition of a third value in ternary logic leads to a total of 3^3 = 27 distinct operators on a single input value. Similarly, where Boolean logic has 2^(2*2) = 16 distinct binary operators (operators with 2 inputs), ternary logic has 3^(3*3) = 19,683 such operators”
There is a distinction between 3 value logic(s) that has the third value (other than the first 2) as being comparable to another of similar value and 3 value logic where it is not.
> 19,683 such operators
Exactly, dummy.
You might need to reword
for that makes little sense as is.
One NULL is not equal to another NULL. You figure out how to word it.
It’s already all figured out, dummy: either your NULL corresponds to a third value, or you don’t really have a three-value logic.
See? That is an argument that K3 can’t express.
All you said was that equivalent logics were equivalent.
The logic is quite simple. One NULL is not equal to another NULL. That’s not an assumption. That’s a fact.
Too simple for you idiot no doubt.
How can an Unknown equal another Unknown when you don’t know what you don’t know?
> One NULL is not equal to another NULL
NULL is NULL, dummy. One can then decide to interpret it any way one sees fit: computation does not terminate, result is indeterminate, both true and false, unknown, unknowable, whatever.
You could not even construct the truth table of A & NOT-A.
Give yourself a chance.
As NULL means unknown, how can you know what it means?
Being unknown is only one interpretation of the NULL, dummy.
Again. Syntax. Semantics. Learn the difference.
NULL being anything other than Unknown is just another interpretation too. And not a very good one. Idiot.
One day you’ll get it, dummy:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-827751
Read the damn paper. It’s a good one.
Just because someone said it, doesn’t make them correct.
Just because your thinking is limited, doesn’t make you clever, just an idiot.
A NULL is an Unknown value, or stands in for one. Nothing you say (or anyone else) changes that.
There were people who argued about the number of angles on the head of a pin. They weren’t correct either.
..number of angels on the head of a pin..
Autocorrect or fingers, I’m not sure
God you’re dumb:
http://web.cs.ucla.edu/~zaniolo/papers/pods82.pdf
After having mishandled the truth tables, you should now know why.
I love how people can figure out what the Unknown means. Must be psychic or something.
You are still an idiot I see.
Let’s say you add a row to a table for the telephone numbers of your clients, dummy.
Is the content of its empty cells unknown to you?
Willard:
“Willard, I think you have no idea what verification and validation really is. The Navier-Stokes equations are very accurate when modeling attached flows with an onset flow that is essentially free of turbulence and no shock waves. There are thousands of test results and billions of model runs that have demonstrated this fact. Separated flows are not well modeled or even well understood. Tropical convection is hopelessly inaccurate in climate models but its critical to understanding where the topopause is and what the radiation balance is.
Conflating the issue with weird generalizations that no model is truly validated is junk science.”
They are not empty, they contain an unknown value. Idiot.
You have problems finding the truth table of a stupid contradiction or interpreting a simple row addition, dummy.
Chances are you’re not ready to discuss more complex issues surrounding model validation.
Unlike you I find I agree with what Roy and John says.
You on the other hand are not intellectually gifted enough to understand what 3 value logic brings to solving otherwise impossible problems or conundrums.
Conundrums like “what’s A & A,” I suppose.
Srsly, Richard. It’s just a flesh wound. Not the first time you bite more than you can chew.
If you could also stop pretending you’re Roy’s Hall Monitor, that’d be great. You’re at 321 comments now. Out of 888. That’s still above 33% of the comments.
1.
Still no hypothesis, dummy.
1.
I like Richard Keen’s model: 37:45 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TT9J7LrheD8&t=2019s
while activist scientists say never mind the data, the theory must be right, we say if the facts dont fit the prediction, the hypothesis is refuted..
While contrarians like them some Popper they always fail to state what they’re supposed to be refuting in the first place, let alone document it.
One does not simply look at a short term graph and say “gotcha,” dummy.
One does look at you and say idiot though.
You’re 74 years old, Richard, and you lack prudence.
So be it.
1.
“Our models are right. It’s the real world that’s wrong”
RLH says: (apparently quoting Robson) ‘Our models are right. It’s the real world that’s wrong’
I’m curious if you (or anyone) has a citation of a climate modeler actually writing or saying something that can fairly be interpreted this way.
The IPCC reports (WG1 AR5 & AR6) are pretty clear that there is an unresolved discrepancy and haven’t to my knowledge ruled out an issue in the modeling.
That was a quote from John Christy in the piece I referred to. Ask him.
It seems that those propagating the sentiment should be responsible for it’s accuracy presuming a good faith exchange.
I do find it subtly ironic that the extended thread has Dr Spencer’s statement regarding the difficulties of constraining the observational error margins and now you’ve entered Dr Cristy’s apparent sentiment that the observational data isn’t suspect at some level.
Perhaps those two need to have a chat?
Both can be correct without contradicting one another you know.
Plus John Christy didn’t say the observations were in error, just the models.
Full text of what John Christy said:
John Christy
Well that has been around for at least 20 years, that our models are right, its the real world thats wrong. And so various ways to try to explain the way the observations have occurred. But over time weve had more than one satellite data set independently produced, more than one balloon data set independently produced, weve had reanalysis where the big weather centres create these maps of temperature and so on. And they all show the same thing, that that part of the atmosphere is not warming. So with so many independent empirical pieces of evidence its hard to make that case anymore that the observations might be wrong.
Over the last 50 years or 40 years, whatever, you would think there would be an increase in the agreement between observations and the models. And in some cases, some variables, thats true but here in this very fundamental variable, the bulk temperature of the atmosphere and this is what greenhouse warming is, is how much extra heat is accumulating in the atmosphere that without getting that right it indicates to you that the physics, or I should say that the model components, are straying even further from the physics and not getting closer to them.
And so we see the result which indicates to you and this is the basic problem with models is theyre not based on fundamental physics, theyre based upon approximations of what happens in the atmosphere. And so when they tune these approximations to fit the surface records, those approximations dont work in the upper atmosphere. Which means theyre not correct and they need to go back to the drawing board in that part.
From what weve found, the amount of heat that is being retained by the models is much greater than what we actually see in the real world. So this is important in the sense that its a test metric. In other words all the models show this should be happening when you increase greenhouse gasses, when you increase that heating amount, and thats something we dont find. Which means the real atmosphere evidently has ways to expel that heat that the models dont allow.
Turns out that the models that agree most with the actual observations theyre still too warm but theyre closer to it are the ones that are least sensitive to carbon dioxide. The ones that have the lowest warming rate at the surface. Scientifically its just amazing or almost incomprehensible, because in the scientific method we make a claim and then we test that claim against independent data and if a claim fails in that test we go back to the drawing board and restate the claim, or modify or result, or just say our result is wrong. We dont see that here. We see model after model continuing to come forward with these scary scenarios of temperature rates that are just still not happening in the real world.
Remember, what we were comparing in our papers, recent publications, is the temperature changes that should have already happened if the models are correct on carbon dioxide. So this is a real simple and direct scientific test of these claims. Remember a climate model is only a hypothesis, its only a claim. And to show that theres a real problem with this claim meets with some vociferous responses because there is so much built upon the notion of climate alarm or climate crisis or climate emergency that when you show up with very simple and direct evidence that these claims can be falsified, you are touching a huge well-funded organization that will not like to see that message out.
So with so many independent empirical pieces of evidence its hard to make that case anymore that the observations might be wrong. (John Cristy)
The question isn’t “Might the observations be wrong?”, it’s “How wrong might the observations be?”
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-827340
Also, I still haven’t seen a citation to the effect of “our models are right, its the real world that’s wrong”.
Ask John for that. I think it was someone who said that at conference to him, but why don’t you check if I’m correct.
We know that the observations about the real temperatures are wrong where USCRN is concerned when using Tmean.
Why should the rest of the world be different? Both now and in the past.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/latitude.jpg
https://imgur.com/zZGqjDN
RLH says: Ask John for that. I think it was someone who said that at conference to him, but why don’t you check if I’m correct.
My interest is less about the accuracy of your statement than it is about whether you cared one way or the other. I think that question has been answered.
I assume that John is not in the habit of lying.
Mark B: Got any observations about the inaccuracy of Tmean when compared to Taverage?
RLH, Out of curiosity, where did you get the transcript from that denialist video?
Oh, while you’re at it, regarding Christy’s claims, compare the MT/TMT tropical data trends for UAH (0.09 k/dec)and RSS (0.145 k/dec). Don’t forget that the MT/TMT both include contamination from the stratospheric cooling, thus under report the real warming.
Another correction for stratospheric cooling, the RSS TTT (0.18 k/dec)is greater than either the MT or the TMT. Although UAH doesn’t calculate a TTT (1.1*TMT – 0.1*TLS), one may calculate the value using just the trends, thus:
UAH TTT = (1.1*0.09-0.1*(-0.26)) = (0.099+0.026) = 0.125 k/dec.
And, these data do not accurately represent the upper troposphere around the tropopause. The MSU ch3 and AMSU ch7 data which UAH says represents the tropopause is also strongly contaminated with that cooling trend in the stratosphere.
Try this, Eric:
Under the title, there is a line that ends with Save / … – click on the three dots, select Open Transcript.
At the right, there will be a transcript – click on the vertical dots and select Toggle timestamps.
Copy-paste de transcript, like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxb0X1fdbaI
E. Swanson:
So you are saying that John Christy is a denialist? Presumably you include Roy Spencer too. After all, all I have done is repeat John’s words.
E Swanson: https://climatediscussionnexus.com/videos/big-trouble-in-tropical-troposphere/
“MT/TMT tropical data trends for UAH (0.09 k/dec)and RSS (0.145 k/dec).”
You’ll have to split that into 2 sections. Before 2000 and after 2005.
JohnC is obviously a contrarian:
https://www.desmog.com/john-christy/
After all, they’re John’s words.
You are obviously an idiot too.
You’re obviously at 36%, dummy.
RLH wrote:
That’s one way to describe what they’ve done for many years.
After all, look to the RHS sidebar at the books Roy has written. Or, consider that Roy signed the Cornwall Alliance Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming (see link at top of page). Or, read some of John’s testimony before Congress or watch the CSPAN videos. Or, dig up some of Roy’s Heartland/NIPCC presentations.
–RLH says:
September 5, 2021 at 12:18 PM
Our models are right. Its the real world thats wrong
{and your full quote of John Christy}
The problem is Earth climate is not controlled by the atmosphere.
The Ocean is Earth climate.
The ocean surface has a much higher average temperature than the land surface. The land surface is a very small portion of the global air surface.
“More than 90% of all global warming is warming the ocean.”
The entire ocean has much more thermal energy than the atmosphere.
If it was about the atmosphere {even 10% of it}, we would not need to measure average global air temperatures for 30 years to determine global average temperature. One day is all you need.
But 30 years not really enough, 60 years would be a lot better, but that is still not really good enough.
You do need to be careful about assumption. A random walk can be influenced by the smallest of offsets. Size may or may not matter. We do need scientific explanations, not faith and hope.
“You do need to be careful about assumption.”
What assumption. Let’s give some.
15 C is cold.
An global average temperature of 15 C, is cold.
The tropics tend to be warm.
Since there are deserts in tropics, the rest of Earth is too dry.
The deserts in Tropics can get cold nights
The tropics gets the most sunlight. Tropics is about 40% of Earth total surface area, and gets more than 1/2 of all sunlight reaching 100% of Earth’s surface. Or places like Canada and Germany get a small amount of sunlight. if tropics received as much per square km as Germany or UK does, the tropical ocean would not be the World’s Heat engine. Unless in turn, Germany got a lot less sunlight than
it currently gets.
The ocean tropical heat engine warms the world including the polar regions. Germany does not warm any thing other than Germany, it imports heat which mostly comes from the tropical ocean heat
engine. Tropical land like Germany does export heat, tropical land imports heat from tropical ocean heat engine. If tropical heat engine does not export enough heat to rest of world, it exports the difference to space. Tropical ocean gets a lot of sunlight and has the most greenhouse gases. And many place in the world can get a much higher surface temperature than the surface of tropical ocean. But such places require a higher average global temperature [provided by the ocean] in order to reach such higher daytime temperature. Highest temperatures require dry air.
The ocean which evaporates can make warm, dry air. It does this because 60% of Earth surface is dry and cold.
The ocean outside tropics are warm, do create clouds {as does land], but it’s correct to say 60% of earth is quite dry as compared to Tropical ocean area, but average it’s about 3000 ppm vs tropical of 40,000 ppm, so dry, but wet compared say Mars {which doesn’t get much sunlight- but more than Germany.
A random walk can be influenced by the smallest of offsets.
“A basic problem with the models is that they are not based on fundamental physics”
“The amount of heat that is being retained by the models is much greater than we see in the real world”
… in the troposphere
… for a very short while
… after many savant “adjustments”
… by a researcher serving as expert witness for the ROP over more than a decade
… none of which refutes whatever hypothesis our contrarians fail to formulate
That was a quote from Christy in the piece I referred to. Why don’t you ask him?
You have no idea about that Climateball move, dummy, do you?
Start here:
https://mwenb.nl/the-missing-tropical-hot-spot/
I notice you don’t challenge John Christy. I wonder why?
Why are you distancing yourself from what John says, dummy?
I am asking why you don’t challenge the person who said what I was quoting.
JohnC has never really been worth my attention, dummy. For instance:
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2019/09/29/climate-deniers-long-term-annoyance/
Now, your turn: why do you keep distancing yourself from what JohnC says?
“JohnC has never really been worth my attention”
Yet you haunt Roy’s site.
Your prejudices are showing.
So says the guy who just posted a video by a famous Freedom Fighter promoting the contrarian hot spot meme, dummy, but without the courage to own it, it goes witout saying.
1.
Don’t let the data bite you on your ass.
You still haven’t identified the hypothesis, dummy.
You are an idiot. No hypothesis needed.
Mister “A = true, A & Not A is unknown” hath spoken!
1. Again.
Our dummy quotes a hypothesis.
Our dummy won’t identify that hypothesis.
Don’t be like our dummy.
Don’t be an idiot like Willard.
Just in case anyone is curious, all those quotes were from John Christy. Mind you, anyone who doesn’t know that already has obviously not watched it so their prejudices are showing.
Full text:
John Christy
“Well that has been around for at least 20 years, that our models are right, it’s the real world thats wrong. And so various ways to try to explain the way the observations have occurred. But over time weve had more than one satellite data set independently produced, more than one balloon data set independently produced, weve had reanalysis where the big weather centres create these maps of temperature and so on. And they all show the same thing, that that part of the atmosphere is not warming. So with so many independent empirical pieces of evidence it’s hard to make that case anymore that the observations might be wrong.
Over the last 50 years or 40 years, whatever, you would think there would be an increase in the agreement between observations and the models. And in some cases, some variables, that’s true but here in this very fundamental variable, the bulk temperature of the atmosphere and this is what greenhouse warming is, is how much extra heat is accumulating in the atmosphere that without getting that right it indicates to you that the physics, or I should say that the model components, are straying even further from the physics and not getting closer to them.
And so we see the result which indicates to you and this is the basic problem with models is theyre not based on fundamental physics, theyre based upon approximations of what happens in the atmosphere. And so when they tune these approximations to fit the surface records, those approximations dont work in the upper atmosphere. Which means theyre not correct and they need to go back to the drawing board in that part.
From what weve found, the amount of heat that is being retained by the models is much greater than what we actually see in the real world. So this is important in the sense that it’s a test metric. In other words all the models show this should be happening when you increase greenhouse gasses, when you increase that heating amount, and that’s something we don’t find. Which means the real atmosphere evidently has ways to expel that heat that the models dont allow.
Turns out that the models that agree most with the actual observations theyre still too warm but theyre closer to it are the ones that are least sensitive to carbon dioxide. The ones that have the lowest warming rate at the surface. Scientifically it’s just amazing or almost incomprehensible, because in the scientific method we make a claim and then we test that claim against independent data and if a claim fails in that test we go back to the drawing board and restate the claim, or modify or result, or just say our result is wrong. We dont see that here. We see model after model continuing to come forward with these scary scenarios of temperature rates that are just still not happening in the real world.
Remember, what we were comparing in our papers, recent publications, is the temperature changes that should have already happened if the models are correct on carbon dioxide. So this is a real simple and direct scientific test of these claims. Remember a climate model is only a hypothesis, it’s only a claim. And to show that theres a real problem with this claim meets with some vociferous responses because there is so much built upon the notion of climate alarm or climate crisis or climate emergency that when you show up with very simple and direct evidence that these claims can be falsified, you are touching a huge well-funded organization that will not like to see that message out.”
> in the scientific method we make a claim and then we test that claim
That claim remains to be identified.
The claim that the models are correct. Idiot.
A quote might be nice, dummy.
Something other than an idiot asking question such as you would be nice too.
“From what we’ve found, the amount of heat that is being retained by the models is much greater than what we actually see in the real world.”
“Turns out that the models that agree most with the actual observations they’re still too warm but they’re closer to it are the ones that are least sensitive to carbon dioxide.”
A quote identifying the claim, dummy.
Meanwhile, it’s safe to say that you and John are putting words in the IPCC’s mouth.
Don’t worry Willard. Being an idiot, nothing you say matters to anyone.
You’re the one who said that the claim was that the models are correct, dummy.
Not only that’s not what the IPCC says, but that’s not what JohnC said either!
“Turns out that the models that agree most with the actual observations, theyre still too warm but theyre closer to it, are the ones that are least sensitive to carbon dioxide.
“that part of the atmosphere”
Which part is that, dummy?
“in the scientific method we make a claim and then we test that claim.
That claim remains to be identified.
The claim that the models are correct. Idiot.”
No claim that you are an idiot needed. You just are one. Idiot.
And John was claiming that the models are incorrect. Based on the data.
Here, dummy:
The claim is not supposed to be JC’s.
‘ actual measurements, by balloons and satellites, consistently show theres far less warming there than predicted.”
This is False. Groups not named UAH have found more warming, close to the predicted.
https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-tech/climate-scientists-find-elusive-tropospheric-hot-spot
And
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/28/6/jcli-d-13-00767.1.xml
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
The most significant Arctic oasis is susceptible to climate change — researchers say that global warming is threatening the region’s ecosystem, and predict that the oasis will cease to exist.
[…]
The researchers point out that air temperatures have never reached the current level in northwest Greenland in the 6,000-year-long period of the polynya’s history studied. Global warming and reduction in sea ice caused by human activity have led to the polynya’s instability. The area is maintained by favourable ocean currents and winds, and particularly by an ice bridge located north of the polynya, which prevents drift ice in the Arctic Ocean travelling further south. It is the annual formation of this natural block that the warming of the climate is now threatening.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/09/210903132643.htm
The globe has indeed been cooling, for at least the last few years. Get over it.
Just in case anyone is curious, the quotes was from the University of Helsinki. Mind you, anyone who doesnt know that already has obviously not watched it so their prejudices are showing.
Sure and the data shows that I am wrong. Not.
Your claim is irrelevant and unsupported in any significant, Mister “A = true, A & Not A is unknown”.
> in any significant
manner, that is, like a statistical test.
What a Hall Monitor we have!
Willard = idiot.
Is water vapour a forcing or a feedback, dummy?
W
How can you expect a man who is cold to understand one who is warm.
A good theory of mind can do wonders, o-bot.
But then Richard’s…
You got a point there!
1.
Sea Ice extent is greater than it has been for the past 5 years.
Global Warming in the Arctic is diminishing.
Don’t tell Willard. He’ll get very cross.
Funny how NASA, NOAA, and all these other entities are minimizing this fact.
Willard would drown when the tide doesn’t stop rising at his command.
So global warming has ended?
There is a time for warming and a time for cooling each according to the phasing of solar and ocean cycles. I’d be going out on a limb to say the warming is ended but there are indications.
Methinks your share RLH ‘s problem.
A tendency to see every cool month or cool year as the beginning of a long term cooling trend.
I think not.
http://nsid***c.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2021/09/Figure3.png
Remove the stars before linking.
“A tendency to see every cool month or cool year as the beginning of a long term cooling trend.”
You suffer from the opposite problem. The need for warmer temperatures no matter what the data shows.
Need?
I come here in hopes of finding solid evidence against global warming and climate change.
Unfortunately I haven’t found any.
I don’t want or need climate change. But it’s happening anyway and I can’t fool myself into thinking otherwise.
Ent, Earth has been in a warming phase for most of the satellite data period. You “believe” that warming is caused by humans, but you have no science to back up your beliefs.
All of your “papers” mean nothing is they violate the laws of physics.
EM? So what is your take on data showing that the tropical troposphere is not doing what the models predicted? See John Cristy’s interview.
“For nearly half a century the climate computer models have said that if you want to see warming, look at the Tropical Troposphere, the portion of the atmosphere above the very bottom but below the stratosphere, and the part of it over the tropics…. actual measurements, by balloons and satellites, consistently show theres far less warming there than predicted. And while activist scientists say never mind the data, the theory must be right, we say if the facts dont fit the prediction, the hypothesis is refuted.”
Like this?
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054007
https://theconversation.com/climate-meme-debunked-as-the-tropospheric-hot-spot-is-found-42055
11 May 2015
June 3, 2015
Probably not.
Probably like this:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/05/comparing-models-to-the-satellite-datasets/
Willard: Great at quoting what others say. Being an idiot that’s all he can do.
Thank you, dummy.
You are the idiot. Everybody knows that.
You really are clueless, dummy.
How warm did it get?
And how cool will it get?
It appears that average global temperature has been about 15 C for a very time.
Apparently more 90% of all global warming warmed the cold ocean, and I am not a fish, so, I failed notice the warming we got.
If we get any cooling will more than 90% of cooling be cooling the ocean which I will not be swimming in?
Next month I going guess it’s +.20 C
Apparently more 90% of all global warming warmed the cold ocean slightly.
RLH,
Unfortunately, no one has been able to make anything warmer by exposing it to sunlight over a long period, than something exposed to a single summer’s day!
Put a large bowl of water (or a large construction – say a Great Pyramid, or the Great Wall of China) in sunlight for as long as you want.
Will it get any hotter than something smaller and more recent? Of course not, only climate crackpots or idiots like Whacky Wee Willy Willard would believe such a nonsensical idea! The sun doesn’t heat the ocean depths. Such fantasies are for the gullible and delusional.
In the UK it is hotter in Aug than it is in Feb (typically). Both day and night.
Thermometer readings or anomalies?
Thermometer readings obviously.
Here’s How to Surf the Great Lakes, America’s Third Coast
“Though it is believed that Great Lakes breakers were first surfed nearly a century ago, the first significant wave of participants arrived in the 1960s. The west coast surf craze was leaking into Middle America, and small surfing communities sprouted across the Great Lakes. Michigan was at the forefront and today, surfing on the ‘Third Coast’ is more popular than ever!”
https://www.michigan.org/article/trip-idea/how-to-surf-the-great-lakes-americas-third-coast
I update my estimate for September from +0.17 to +0.20
RLH – I expect your “cooling” trend will induce you estimate a lower value for September?
Lower than +0.17c. Yes.
But strictly I should wait to confirm this for about 20 days or so.
ENSO appears to be repeating a pattern similar to last year. Thus I expect it to dilly dally until December and after that either hit a 10 year low or come very close to it.
After that we could have an El Nino or maybe not. Its dang hard to predict long term trends when ENSO has such high amplitude natural variation (~4C for the ENSO with GAT about 1/4 of that). It appears to depend a lot on what the oceans are doing over hundreds of years as we are barely away from that amount of net variation over the past 140 years even with all the feedbacks from ice sheet losses.
Surface temperature anomaly for 2021 is drifting upwards.
https://www.climate.gov/sites/default/files/ytd-horserace-202107.png
Sure we all doomed.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2020/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2020/trend/plot/rss/from:2020/trend/plot/uah6/from:2020/trend
drifting/dilly dallying. . . .yep!
norman…”I have already posted rational points why Lanka is a lunatic with zero credibility. You ignore the points and continue on”.
***
Must have missed it, I don’t recall you offering anything on Lanka but ad homs and insults.
Lanka has a degree in microbiology and he is credited with discovering the first virus in the ocean. He is the only scientist of whom I am aware who has studied the history of viruses and who can speak about how viral theory began and what is wrong with it.
He has also won court cases in Germany by convincing the courts that no scientific evidence is available to support the claim of an HIV virus or a measles virus. That does not mean neither exists it means there is no scientific proof they exist.
Any scientist who can do that is far from being a lunatic, as you claim.
Here, Norman, critique this paper from an expert who has used this material in court to win a case.
https://wissenschafftplus.de/uploads/article/Dismantling-the-Virus-Theory.pdf
More links to Lanka articles, the scientist who has proved in court that viruses like covid have no scientific basis.
See the English section, unless you speak the other languages.
https://wissenschafftplus.de/cms/de/wichtige-texte
Gordon Robertson
Thank you for the link. I like to read the material myslelf.
After reading it I am more then ever convinced Lanka is a lunatic crank or far worse…
https://tinyurl.com/vkd9wfew
There are some who believe the “weaklings” should die off so he may be against vaccinations as a means of weeding out what he considers to be inferior people and groups.
He provides no evidence to back his claims. He claims bacteria transform into phages (viruses that infect and kill bacteria). I searched for any article that supports such claims and there were none to be found. This means he might just be making up stuff to sell a belief.
Here are some articles you should consider before you consider Lanka to be an intelligent scientist. Making up things is NOT science.
https://tinyurl.com/88xf56sp
https://tinyurl.com/4r4yzsy5
https://tinyurl.com/37wcmpcv
Gordon Robertson
Science is not just about experiment and observation. It is how you draw conclusions from you observations as well. If you do not have rational or logical thought you can formulate a total false conclusion based upon evidence. Evidence is necessary but it is only one of the pillars. Logical conclusions from evidence is a must.
https://tinyurl.com/2njfnzjz
This is a graph of measles cases over the years. It was quite high before vaccinations became available.
Gordon Robertson
https://tinyurl.com/mc7v8229
Many people got fairly sick with measles and many were hospitalized yearly and some hundreds died.
Measles vaccine is created by using a weakened version of a live virus (one that causes the disease).
The logical argument that Lanka completely fails to explain (as well as you have not attempted yet) is why would a weakened version of something that does not exist all but eliminate the disease?
I don’t think you or Lanka could develop a logical argument to explain this evidence. Logic would make it clear their is a virus that causes the measles disease. It can and has been isolated (or else it would not be possible to make a vaccine using a weakened strain) and it is used to make a vaccine. When this vaccine is injected into people they no longer develop measles. The only places it comes back in are groups of people NOT vaccinated. Logic is a hard boss but neither you nor Lanka have a bit of it. You have conspiracy theories, made up ideas, and a disdain for anything established.
Polio too.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/reported-paralytic-polio-cases-and-deaths-in-the-united-states-since-1910
rlh…”Polio too”.
Not sure what point you are trying to make. Can you explain why polio struck in years like 1910, then went away on its own? Also, can you confirm that all the cases listed in the 1940s – 1950s, spike were actually polio and that the polio would not also have gone away on its own.
The polio vaccine was introduced circa 1955. Look at your graph, there was not time for enough people to be vaccinated by the time the number of cases dropped off by 1960. Vaccines do not cure polio.
Look at the red dotted line representing polio deaths. There were more deaths in 1910 and they did not have the technology to detect the number of cases. The number of deaths in the 1940 – 1950 spike was zero by 1960. There’s no way that can be attributed to a vaccine introduced 5 years before.
There is a much better explanation for the polio situation in the article by Lanka.
Finally, the last major outbreak of polio happened during and immediately after a major war. We have not encountered a situation like that since. People have been relatively healthy.
Here’s another graph from the same site reporting the number of estimated cases from the actual number. The CD.C and the WHO are notorious for using estimates rather than actual numbers.
In your original link, the number of deaths are so much lower than the rest of the reported cases. Suspicious.
sorry…forgot the link…
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/reported-vs-estimated-total-number-of-paralytic-polio-cases-globally
Gordon Robertson
If you did even a little research you could answer you questions on Polio.
In the 1916 surge people panicked and went into lockdown conditions (Again showing how these tactics can slow the infection rate of a contagious disease).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_polio
“The 1916 epidemic caused widespread panic and thousands fled the city to nearby mountain resorts; movie theaters were closed, meetings were canceled, public gatherings were almost nonexistent, and children were warned not to drink from water fountains, and told to avoid amusement parks, swimming pools, and beaches.”
The numbers on the graph are new cases reported each year. After the vaccine the number of new cases dropped considerably and the death rate was much lower because medical science tries to save lives so they continue to improve ways of taking care of people. When a treatment is found that works it spreads. In the 1950’s they developed a serum that had effectiveness but was costly.
Lanka makes up unsupported claims so why do you believe them. Since he is a dishonest human, lying is not an issue with him. Manipulating people is his goal and lies work well on some who will not question.
Here is unsupported claims made by Lanka (normally considered malicious rumors as it implies intentional deceit by the medical community…for such claims you need more than a rash statement you need solid proof…does Lanka provide it? NO!! He just makes up things).
“A vaccine was to help eradicate the alleged
virus. After the polio vaccine was introduced, the
symptoms were then re-diagnosed among other
things as multiple sclerosis, flaccid acute paralysis, aseptic meningitis etc. and later polio was
claimed to have been eradicated.”
Gordon Robertson
Since you crave malicious rumors and love information that is unsupported by evidence.
It is obvious you are an evil alien that wants to use humans as food. You came to the UN in the past and made a TV show about it “How to Serve Humans”.
Your goal on posting on this blog is to lower the level of thinking by continuous posting fake phony science and information so that we are less able to discern the reality of your manipulations. When your fellow evil alien comrades come to Earth the common human will be so deluded by the false and fake information that they will think you have come as benevolent servants to aid humans in their plight while they willfully board your spacecraft to see alien wonders on your distant world.
It has to be true because I am Lanka and everything I say is always true. Even when I make up 90% of what I write believe that is is 100% true. I wouldn’t lie to you. I am the glorious Stefan Lanka, I found the first viruses and now. because I say so, they no longer exist and no one has found any. All EM images are fakes and forgeries because ME the infallible have spoken.
Hope you found humor in the satire. Your blind trust of these Con-men amazes me. You will not trust text-book material but every clown that makes unsupported claims you accept as fine gold and silver.
“In the early 1950s, two prominent medical researchers each found a way to protect the world from poliomyelitis, the paralysis-causing disease commonly known as polio. The vaccines created by Dr. Jonas Salk and Dr. Albert Sabin resulted in the near-global eradication of polio.”
https://www.livescience.com/polio-virus-vaccine.html
norman…”Here are some articles you should consider before you consider Lanka to be an intelligent scientist”.
***
You are claiming I should change my mind after being informed by a qualified scientist who has taken the time to research the history of the virus? Lanka explains the origins of viruses as phages much better than the amateurish article to which you link.
I find it astounding that until 1954, we were still very much in the dark about the virus. Nothing has changed in the interim. We have adopted the word of a scientist, Enders, circa 1954, who plagiarized old propaganda about the virus and since then we have been exposed to the same propaganda.
Enders was in the US Army, does that not raise alarm bells? Lanka clearly explains how he messed up royally. The Army is always looking for evidence of biological warfare. Enders is now known as the father of modern vaccines, a really scary thought. Enders had no idea what he was doing yet Salk copied his methodology to create the first polio vaccine.
It should be noted that Salk’s first vaccine killed thousands of people.
In the 1970s, the Louis Pasteur Institute put our a modified version of Koch’s Postulate that had to be met in order to physically isolate a virus. Although a member of his team, Barre-Sinoussi, helped write that protocol, Montagnier and his team abandoned it because they could not find HIV on an electron microscope.
Duh!!!!
Instead, they invented a method based on retroviral theory, which itself was only invented in the 1970s, and INFERRED HIV. That is the same method used today to infer covid and it is the basis of the RNA-PCR test for covid.
Lanka has never claimed measles does not exist, or that AIDS does not exist, he is simply claiming the science claiming viruses that cause those conditions is seriously faulty. He convinced two German courts of that truth yet here you are calling him a crank.
Gordon Robertson
I am not thinking he is just a crank but an evil person with ulterior motives.
People are starting to believe him and similar types.
The goal, if good, should be to minimize harm. The more people that believe his BS the more people will end up dying and getting sick.
With HIV, the current understanding it is a retrovirus and they treat it with Anti-Viral drugs. The outcome of this treatment is a much better chance of survival. It the hypothesis is incorrect and Lanka’s evil twin Duesberg.
https://www.verywellhealth.com/how-many-people-die-from-aids-each-year-49053
Anti-Viral treatment.
Duesberg King of deception and peddling false information. Not at all scientific, he ignores all evidence that goes against his ideas.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duesberg_hypothesis
One of the big flaws in Duesberg’s ideas is that people who developed AIDS all had HIV via established test. No AIDS developed regardless of drug use or lifestyle if HIV was not detected. He is a horrible scientist and you think he is awesome. Why? He makes up things and rejects evidence. He also lacks logical thought to form a valid conclusion.
rlh..”How does the US compare with other countries?
There were 14,400 gun-related homicides in 2019″.
***
There are other factors involved.
-How many of those 14,400 deaths were committed by unregistered, illegal guns, which are mainly carried by criminals or gangs members?
-People in the US feel the need to be armed because criminals and gangs have a relatively free hand to operate. This has been made worse with idiots wanting to defund police.
USA paranoia about guns is well known. The fact is that for whatever reason, the USA uses guns to kill people a lot more than most of the rest of the world.
So you believe only the government should have guns? We would all be a lot safer? I wonder how the citizens of Australia feel about giving up their guns?
Regardless, the USA uses guns to kill people a lot more than most of the rest of the world.
US has more guns then anywhere in the world.
We keep voting for politicians which encourage “record sales of guns”- like Obama.
And has any country in world have politicians who support defunding the police?
Guns are like cars or indoor plumbing. You don’t need cars or indoor plumbing.
In the UK I don’t feel the need to have a gun.
I don’t own a gun. I live in US. When was a kid in Canada, I owned a gun. I never really used it. There were bears, but not grizzly bears. There were grizzly bears within few hundred miles, but did not visit such places. And not really effective against them if they are charging you. If was grassland land, you have more space. You just don’t want to between and their kids. And applies to the smaller black bears. Or if any animal are sick or something.
And in US I have been [in terms of years] in worst crime infested area. Also lived in small towns. I would prefer to live where you don’t need to lock your doors- but I think might only get this in rural areas.
I would say males don’t really need a gun. But women have good argument for having them.
When I was a kid I did also. Not owned one, but sure used one. Living in the country it was quite natural. Different times now of course.
It is part of the price we pay to keep an armed citizenry. Without the 2nd amendment, there are no other liberties. We don’t have the government coming into our homes confiscating our guns like in the UK. We have this right that UK citizens do not have. So, we should give up this right because you’ve noticed people are killed with guns, and it bothers you? Much rather be here than in the UK.
We buy US guns, German guns, Austrian guns, Swiss guns, Italian guns, Czech guns, Russian guns, Chinese guns, Turkish guns, Serbian guns, Belgian guns, etc. We don’t buy British guns. Do the Brits make guns anymore? I guess you can use swords in the next war.
The British tend to make rather good shotguns.
Many people like Stephen, wishes the US was still like the old west, where all males had a pistol in a holster. They had to regularly shoot wolves and coyotes attacking the herd. There were few sheriffs, judges, law enforcement. There were some gunfights, and posses, and vigilante justice.
The actual old-west only lasted ~ 25 y. The west now has regular police, and courts, and suburbs, and 0.0001% of the people have to protect their herds of cattle.
Maybe Stephen ought to get into video games.
rlh…”SA paranoia about guns is well known”.
***
As I said, many have a justification for their paranoia. Criminals brazenly break into peoples’ homes and mug them on the streets and in their cars when they stop at red lights.
It’s not US citizens who are the problem it is politicians representing vested interests who won’t spend the money to get rid of the criminal element. Now, idiotic political types are calling for even less police presence.
The UK is slowly turning the same way with racial unrest and violent Jamaican drug dealers who seem to be immune to prosecution. You may have to buy a firearm soon.
BTW…gun ownership is protected by the US constitution…legal guns, not illegal guns. Mind, you, some States have no gun control requirements. Even here in Canada, where legal gun ownership is closely monitored, idiots are calling for removal of the right of Canadians to own guns. All based on a few cranks who have committed atrocities, likely using illegal firearms.
The way I see it, no one can tell what the future has in store. We may wake up one day under the control of a fascist government or natural disaster may leave citizens with no protection. For that reason, all citizens should have the right to protect themselves.
“gun ownership is protected by the US constitution”
Does that mean you can always buy a machine gun? Or a howitzer?
Monday Nino update. As I predicted a while ago the secondary LaNina is now shaping up to be bigger than the first one
https://i.postimg.cc/sXwhjSpw/nino3-4-sep.png
https://i.postimg.cc/nVWX3nTj/6nino34-Mon.gif
Or as Osama Bin Der Dong would say – no LaNina in sight
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/NMME/current/images/nino34.rescaling.NMME.png
But it’s betting warmer I tell you.
Thanks Eben for the nice polemic, but I have already admitted I was very probably wrong.
And the ‘very probably’ will disappear when in this graph
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
the blue bar increases up to 50 %.
But… not before.
Go back to your data slicer and recalculate your cherry picked trend lines to the fifth decimal. It’s just as useless as your predictions
Eben
Your impolite, dumb aggressiveness is boring.
And above all: these predictions aren’t mine.
They are made by Japan’s Met Agency, and these people have proven to be about 1,000,000 times more intelligent than primitive Dumbies like you.
All you are able to do is polemic, mixed with links to absolutely disgusting pictures.
You too are a coward person, who publishes such trash on this blog BECAUSE it is not moderated.
Nice try, the creep blaming it on somebody else now.
You can’t figure out where to get a forecast and even if you could you would not know what you are looking at anyway.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-747886
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
The southern winter that just ended in New Zealand was the warmest ever recorded, and scientists say that climate change is driving temperatures ever higher.
For the three months through August, the average temperature was 9.8 Celsius (50 Fahrenheit), according to New Zealand’s National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research.
That’s 1.3C above the long-term average and 0.2C higher than the previous record posted last year. Scientists have been keeping records since 1909, but most of the warmest winters have been recent.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/climate-and-environment/climate-change-pushes-new-zealand-to-warmest-recorded-winter-1.5574770
I wonder if La Nina, which tends to create a warm lump to the East of NZ, has anything to do with that.
“Scientists have been keeping records since 1909”
Such a LONG term record. Almost as good as some USA stations.
The Only Trick of Roy’s One-Trick Pony (v.4):
0. Respond by squirreling some factoid;
1. Challenged, brag;
2. Pinned down, Just Ask Questions;
3. Countered, try to insult
Willard’s response is always to be an idiot.
You forgot the statistic numbers, how many people dieded from this warmest ever winters ???
Nice try, Eboy, the creep blaming it on somebody else now.
I think RLH is right, this guy is retarded
Whataboutism suits you better, Eboy.
Idiot.
No U
1.
Ken
Your post dated September 5, 2021 at 2:06 PM
” Sea Ice extent is greater than it has been for the past 5 years. ”
Yes. I see that every day in various sources available online.
But it is the same as when somebody writes:
” This year, n months in a row were cooler than last year. ”
And?
That happened 10 times during the satellite era!
To answer:
” This year, n months in a row were cooler than last year. Get over it. ”
is simply childish.
Why?
Simply because e.g. on the WUWT blog, every time somebody writes:
” This year is warmer than the three years before. ”
or
” The sea levels are rising. ”
you can be sure than immediately after that, a pack of people answer
” That happened numerous times during the last 10,000 years! ”
It is exactly the same Pavlovian reflex.
By the way, what you wrote about (August’s extent level higher than in the 5 years before) happened, according to NOAA, only 2 times in the sat era (1992, 1996).
But in the decades before, it happened in 1953, 1954, 1960, 1962, 1968, 1975, 1977, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1985, 1990, 1993, 1995, 2002, 2005, 2007 and 2012, according to Hadley’s Arctic sea ice records.
*
” Global Warming in the Arctic is diminishing. ”
As I told many times, I really hope so:
– sea ice and ice sheet melt create more and more atmospheric perturbations and colder weather over Western Europe;
– the subsequent decrease of salinity in the Northern Atlantic ocean is very certainly a Gulf Stream perturbator.
Gracias no!
Apos, this was the wrong list, I’m a bit tired today.
The correct one is
1959, 1964, 1965, 1967, 1969, 1978, 1986, 1996, 2014.
Got any actual reasons why Tmean is so inaccurate when compared to Taverage for daily temperatures?
And why the difference is related to Latitude?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/latitude.jpg
Sea Ice extent is greater than it has been for the past 5 years.
Which only is worth stating to show how wrong the alarmists are when they try to tell everyone there will be an ice free arctic soon.
Global Warming in the Arctic is diminishing.
“As I told many times, I really hope so:”
Actually the only reason I hope it stops warming is to stop the asshats from taking away access to fossil fuels. Otherwise, I am fed up living in a country where winter is the fact of life 6 months of the year. In my view, significant warming would not be a bad thing.
Ken, the annual sea-ice cycle hit a snag around the beginning of August this year. I would not be surprised to learn that all those forest fires pumping black carbon soot and aerosols into the high latitude air may have slowed the late season melt. We won’t know the minimum for a few more weeks, but just now the extent is only a bit above the -2 sigma boundary.
” Otherwise, I am fed up living in a country where winter is the fact of life 6 months of the year. In my view, significant warming would not be a bad thing. ”
Tells us a guy who seems to live in… Iceland.
And is brazen enough to globalize his local climate problems.
Move to Spain, Ken!
” Otherwise, I am fed up living in a country where winter is the fact of life 6 months of the year.”
Ken is just like RG. Their ‘world’ is their backyard.
Solutions-
-Move south-maybe try Bangladesh.
-Get an electric blanket.
–SEPTEMBER 6, 2021
THAT’S WHAT XI SAID: John Kerry echoes China’s argument that human rights sanctions threaten climate talks.
But then, as Richard Fernandez asks: Does China Really Believe in ‘Climate Change?’ “In fact, China insisted that it needed more coal-fired power plants for economic and energy security reasons…One of the things the Chinese coal plants run are factories making solar panels for the West. As the WSJ wrote, Behind the rise of U.S. solar power lies a mountain of Chinese coal.” —
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
It quite simple. China has lots of deserts. It makes lots of solar panel, has endless need of energy, doesn’t use the solar panels and world largest producer of them.
One could argue that China is not a good place to harvest solar energy. But a lot better than Germany. Or any place in Canada, and but roughly China has vast open spaces {deserts] which get more solar energy as compared where most solar panels are used- Though is middle east areas which using a lot solar energy which are better location than anywhere in China.
Any place where government is heavily subsiding solar energy, generally is worse than China.
China makes solar panels and makes fentanyl on massive scale and exports them.
Chinese governments hates the rest of the world.
Not China is the problem as far as colar & co are concerned: all countries outside of it are the problem.
Quite simply because the immense competition in retail means that all companies around the world are ordering ever more and cheaper goods from China.
The USA and Europe can be pleased that only the direct emissions of the exporting countries are discussed instead of referring to the indirect emissions of the importing countries.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-largest-co2-importers-exporters
But… I don’t mean just CO2, but also SO2, NO2 etc etc which in my mind play a much more important role.
Don’t forget H2O.
H2O is a feedback, not a forcing. Absolute humidity increases in a warmer world but does not cause it.
Global warming is not caused by releasing extra water, extra water is caused by global warming.
It’s neither. It is 0.4% of the atmosphere. CO2 is 0.04%. They’re insignificant. However, H20 absorbs thousands of times more IR than CO2.
Stephen P Anderson
Kind of would like to know what is the source of your claim: “However, H20 absorbs thousands of times more IR than CO2.”
“Absolute humidity increases in a warmer world but does not cause it.”
Proof?
The argument is that 3/4 of the surface is covered by water. There is plenty of water available. But the air is not saturated with water vapor.
On average the air is too cold to hold much water. Any water added to it quickly condenses when moved around by weather to cooler air. A balance is achieved.
When it warms, on average, the air can hold more water. A new balance level is reached.
Yet to witness someone, who thought this cold world is going to get too hot.
Or no one cares about global warming. It is not issue that they can’t do anything about it. It’s THEY DO NOT CARE.
But if they cared {which I know they don’t} a solution to controlling global warming or global cooling probably relates to
our space environment. Everything other than just Planet Earth.
Which doesn’t exclude Earth, but simply if we got beyond Earth, we could do something.
Now, no one wants Earth to get less sunlight, but using space environment we could block all of sunlight reaching Earth or prevent
some sunlight {even in selected areas] from reaching Earth.
That we could have such power, could scare you witless, but it’s easy to do, that alone could control global warming. A bit harder, but not much, is we add more sunlight- or something about global cooling.
But is not the totality of what could be done. Rather it’s the simple stuff. And I know no one actually care a wit about global warming.
But I do imagine people care about having enough cheap energy.
The budget of Energy Dept is 31 billion dollars per year.
And the Energy Dept is useless as Dept of Education which is 64 billion. But it tends indicate some level of caring about such things.
The space environment has unlimited amounts potential cheap energy. We have huge Fusion reactor which is the sun, and energy can capture at Earth distance, or better to get at Venus distance from the Sun. But generally, most interest is Earth distance from the Sun.
It seems if get to point of getting solar energy at Geostationary orbit, some people could complain it blocks the sun. It would not do this in any significant way, just more 1000 satellite in GEO orbit are currently blocking the sun in any significant way.
They would be bigger, one could probably see them with binoculars, but they would be 22,000 miles away. Or ISS is 250 miles away. 100 times further, what the math?
ISS is 100 meter long. Ah boring, something like ISS blocking the sun. One can find pictures of ISS crossing:
https://www.cnet.com/news/nasa-captures-stunning-view-of-iss-crossing-in-front-of-the-sun/
I same picture of SPS in GEO, should appear smaller.
Or about 99% of sunlight they get would not reach earth.
If want to block sun, go to L-1. It block 100% of sunlight they receive. But it be some parts of L-1 which never block any sunlight reaching earth. One could say L-1 has more “real estate” of not blocking any of Earth’s sunlight then real estate of GEO [which is HUGE, HUGE, and HUGE}. But L-1 as all of Earth’s L-points, are quite far away.
If had trillion people living in L-1, that would be quite different, as said, they should live in Venus L-1 in low cost housing.
Oh, does anyone imagine that Musk’s plan of 30,000 satellite in LEO
will cause global cooling?
Musk might actually be global warming manic, maybe it’s a plan to lower global air temperatures.
The biggest problem with space is how to get the energy from the soup bowl to the planet.
We don’t need satellites. Just build an array spelling ‘drink coca cola’ on the moon. It doesn’t rotate, so the advertisement always faces the earth.
“The biggest problem with space is how to get the energy from the soup bowl to the planet.”
It is not a problem.
The biggest problem is the lack of exploration.
Hopefully we will get exploration of lunar polar region within
a few years.
And that exploration is focused on determining if and where there
is the most mining lunar water.
And then the question: if most mineable lunar water is actually mineable.
If lunar water is mineable, it seems to me, you have mine a lot per year. So, one could mine less than 100 tons in one year, but within a few years, it seems one has to close to mining 1000 or more ton per year.
If making 1000 tons of rocket fuel from the water in a year, it requires a large amount electrical power. And if using a large amount electrical for a few years, you will be lowering the cost of electric power on the Moon {or you will going bankrupt}.
There are few ways I know which this might be done {and I imagine it’s quite possible there other ways I don’t know of, might be done}.
If lunar water is not mineable within decade, it could mineable within 2 decades, or four decades. Or the exploration done by NASA could lead to other exploration which finds “more” mineable lunar water. If there is no mineable lunar water, then one might mine something else on the Moon, like lunar iron or whatever, again at some point in time.
But what NASA “should do” is explore lunar polar region to determine if and where there is mineable lunar, then without delaying for years, explore Mars.
One thing to explore on Mars, is also to see if and where there is the most mineable Mars water.
Or without mineable Mars water, you can’t have human settlements.
Mineable Lunar water can be quite expensive and you don’t much of it. Mineable Mars water is sort of opposite, you need a lot and it has to be pretty cheap {say around $1 per kg or less, whereas Lunar water for rocket fuel could be $500 per kg or less}.
It’s possible neither Mars or Moon is viable. But if one is viable, it makes the other one more viable].
Though that is my view of it.
There are other ways.
My view is we need more markets in space.
Or we already have one market, which is the global satellite market which is + 400 billion global market.
And it is why we are here.
It is why launch costs have been lowering.
In this comparison, the lunar rocket market is rather small- it starts small and grows. Or lunar rocket market starts somewhere in the tens of billion per year- I see it as an addition to the global satellite market.
It seems Elon Musk is sort of thinking of other ways, and saying is he wrong, is a bad bet.
Musk is focused making launch cost very cheap, and has made it fairly cheap.
This is basically what NASA tried to do {and failed, badly}.
The SpaceX starship is basically, the Space Shuttle that could work.
Or the Space Shuttle which can land on Mars.
And shortly, is going to land on the Moon. It was not really designed for landing on the Moon, it’s designed for Mars.
NASA paying SpaceX to do this. There lawsuits claiming or are against this NASA choice.
Basically, Congress failed to fully fund NASA lunar exploration- because that is what Congress always does. So NASA picked cheapest way to go to the Moon, or bet on winning horse.
I imagine Congress will provide more funding and therefore allow NASA to not just bet on one horse.
Or you could say in terms of immediate options, NASA took one option, but certainly it’s in NASA and the nation interest to have multiple parties that NASA could depend upon.
And of course the other elephant is SLS. Which US senate has funding at the tune of 2 billion dollar a year for a decade, and after more than a decade, has not flown [was planned for before 2017}. SLS stands for “Space Launch System” the general public call it the Senate Launch System. And NASA continues to plan to use SLS, the Lunar Starship is costing NASA a lot less money.
Or SLS has sunk cost of about 20 billion, and develop Lunar Starship it’s about 2 billion over next few years.
So NASA recently signed check for 300 million, and if SpaceX continue to deliver, will get other payments and once the Starship lands of Moon they get paid the full amount. Lawsuit is about this 300 million as starting payment of whole program.
Or SLS has been cost plus thing, COTS- Commercial Orbital Transportation Services, has been what SpaceX has been doing with ISS. As has Boeing and other launch providers been doing this- and NASA wants continue it, as it’s been quite successful as compared to cost plus where NASA pays “and doesn’t get a rocket launched”- or what SLS is. And “the normal way” NASA as done things for decades. The James Webb Space telescope is another cost plus thing, hopefully, it successful launches this Nov. It was planned to have been launched, years ago.
What you mainly doing with lunar water is making Liquid Oxygen.
This an important distinction. Or people tend to think you split water to make Hydrogen [which is other part of rocket fuel: LH2 + LOX] but the mass of water is mostly O2. Therefore O2 is mostly why you split water. If all you had was 02 you even import LH2 to the Moon “and it works”. But in terms oxygen, 40% of mass of lunar surface is oxygen. And water is simply a lower energy cost to get oxygen {and plus you get the Hydrogen}. Next cheapest is Iron Oxide.
The Moon has pure iron and iron oxide, the iron oxide is more valuable, because of it’s oxygen. Or oxygen is worth, well liquid oxygen, is worth on Earth about 10 cent per kg {and liquid hydrogen is worth about $5 per kg]. One the Moon LOX is worth about $1000 per kg and LH2 is worth +$4000 per kg.
One need 6 kg of LOX and 1 Kg of LH2 for rocket fuel.
6000 + 4000 = 10,000 / 7 = $1,428.57 per kg of rocket fuel.
Or cheapness of Oxygen on Moon or Earth makes rocket fuel cheap. Most rocket are using much more oxygen [in terms of mass] than whatever “fuel” is used.
Musk is using methane and LOX, this is cheapest known rocket fuel, Musk wants bring cost of launch down near the cost of rocket fuel used. Or airline charge about 4 times the cost of jet fuel per seat costs. Musk appears to want to do even better than airlines. But current rocket launches are no where near the rocket fuel cost. “Normally” rocket fuel cost is not even consider as an important cost of launching rockets- or something like less than 1/1000th of price. Or solid fuel rockets have very high cost in terms of rocket cost, and solid rockets are commonly used- such with a Space Shuttle which had huge Solid Boosters. But even though NASA wanted liquid boosters for Shuttle, it was not because solid rocket were expensive- rather solids rocket was consider a cheap solution. And were not a significant cost of Shuttle. Though liquid rocket could be reused- and reuse could lower costs {if done right}.
And reuse of spacecraft, is why having rocket fuel on the Moon is very important.
ken…”We dont need satellites. Just build an array spelling drink coca cola on the moon. It doesnt rotate, so the advertisement always faces the earth”.
***
That’s the spirit Ken, good on ya.
Still nothing to suggest how to get the energy from the space borne solar panel to the earth where it would presumably be used.
The present problem is the current high cost of electrical power anywhere in space.
And mining lunar water and making rocket fuel lowers the electrical cost of anywhere in space.
It also create a market for water anywhere in space.
I think what is actually most important is creating a market for water in space.
I think the consequent of creating a market for water
in space, is within century, the Moon will import a lot of cheap water from this water market in space.
So in Earth orbit one can buy water, and in Earth orbits, one can use electrical power to make rocket fuel from the water.
But why the moon, first, is because it needs to least amount water to start this water market- or only needs start with about 2000 tons a year.
And has highest starting price, somewhat sheltered against competition from the water market in space that it will create, but eventually it will cheaper to import rocket fuel and water from the rest of Space to the moon, rather than mine water on the Moon or make rocket fuel on the Moon. And at such point in time, lunar water would selling for less than $1 per kg. And have mined maybe only about 1/4 of the water, it could have mined.
So the solar power satellite will sell electrical power in orbit to make rocket fuel from water.
{though polar polar region is good place to harvest solar energy, it also quite a small place- high earth orbit is vast area and lots of sunlight
A lot people assume lunar rocket fuel will to sold in LEO, but solar power satellites could sell much cheaper rocket fuel to LEO.
So when I say lunar water could start at $500 per kg or $500,000 per ton. And I were to say the Moon could have as much as 1 billion tons of mineable water . I am not saying $500,000 x 1,000,000,000 ton = 500 trillion dollar of water. Or before one can possibly mine 1 million tons, lunar water will be a lot cheaper.
And with Mars it is immediately in it’s beginning selling millions tons of Mars water. Your Mars town would best located if had local access to a billion tons of drinkable water or more.
The Sahara desert aquifer currently, ” estimated 2.4 km3 of fresh water for consumption and agriculture per year.” – wiki
Or 2.4 billion tonnes of water per year.
China uses about 1 trillion tons, US about 600 billion of tons per year.
So, by time it’s selling electrical energy to earth, it’s electrical cost will a lot cheaper than it is now. And industry will go to the cheapest energy- and least restricted also helps.
And largest energy market will be in the orbit of Venus.
Also we have two richest people who want this:
–Bezos envisions a trillion humans in the solar system, with “a thousand Mozarts, or a thousand Einsteins.” —
https://www.inverse.com/article/55709-blue-origin-s-jeff-bezos-details-his-radical-vision-for-colonies-in-space
Musk seems to doing a lot more, but Bezos is kind of sneaky.
But in loose sense, we already have power satellites.
There is 1,740 Starlink satellites in orbit each with solar panels getting 4 Kw. Which somewhere near the total solar energy of all other satellites in orbit or equal to 29 international Space Stations amount of solar energy.
Or 1740 times 4 = 6,960 kw. or 6.9 MW.
Got the 4 Kw solar panels order to beam signal to Earth surface- and signal energy is worth more than if converted into electrical power.
Or one focus the beam more. rather have beam that covers a large region.
And Musk say he wants about 30,000 of them.
He already spent about 1 billion dollars, and will end up spending more 10 billion dollar and will make hundreds of billions, if lucky, but if just breaks even {obviously still is red right now] it could worth to him, because he might do something similar on Mars, but have used a way to get electrical power to Mars surface. Probably electrical power and communication signal.
Or if Musk could make electrical on Mars cost $1 per Kw hour {about 10 times more than earthlings paid for electrical power. And have Mars water so it can bought for $1 per kg {about 1000 times earth water] that an important aspect in making Mars settlements, viable.
Or as I said electrical is space [and water in space] is currently very expensive. But space power and water can become cheaper than Earth power and water.
Because transportation in space is cheap, there endless amount of energy one can get in space, and endless amounts freshwater you get in space.
Or we have cheap rocket fuel on Earth, we can have much cheaper rocket fuel in space as compared to current cheap Earth rocket fuel.
And Venus orbit will have cheapest rocket fuel because Venus orbit is best transportation in our solar system.
When this happen will be probably +50 year from now {or depending on exploration results, much, much longer than 50 years. Very unlikely to happen in less than 50 years]. But well before 50 years, trillionaires could created if they lower these high prices in space as quickly as possible.
Seeing as COVID is getting discussed I thought I’d throw in my 3 and a half cents worth.
Trump was right when he said between 30 000 and 60 000 Americans die of flu annually.
More than 10 times that number have died of COVID since March 2020. And this is with policies and practises in place to reduce transmissible diseases. Imagine if the world had NOT masked up, socially distanced, had rolling lockdowns…
Those who say ‘comorbidity’ probably aren’t realizing the same holds for seasonal flu mortality. Those who say that COVID is only included, not necessarily cause, probably aren’t realizing that the same can be said of seasonal flu and any other diseases and ailments where the cascade to death is rarely a single factor.
IOW, if you’re going to question COVID this way, you need to apply to other causes of death, too. This reductive reasoning eventually leads to the familiar anti-science conclusion, “we don’t know anything.”
Anyway, there is excellent corroboration for COVID mortality figures. The number of death certificates that have been signed over the last 18 months compared to the number of death certificates singed in the years previous to March 2020.
In any country with high mortality rates due to COVID, there are spikes of death certificates commensurate with the reported COVID fatalities. Amazing coincidence! Maybe suicide is up… But the correlation doesn’t stop there – the timing of COVID mortality spikes and the rise in signed death certificates also match. This is in countries across the world that have high mortality rates associated with COVID.
The vaccines are effective and reducing the virulence of the disease. The numbers are striking, and once again, are consistent across hospitals from many countries.
A problem that many debaters have of this issue is that they only look at their own country, and ignore the rest of the world, except where some tidbit seems to (but often doesn’t really) support their views (hiya Sweden!).
I haven’t waded into the morass of comments on it here. One glance at Gordon’s depraved gumpf is quite enough.
But the pandemic is real, it is much, much worse than seasonal flu. Currently, about as any Americans have died of the disease as dies of the Spanish flu, and while one of the MANY factors to weigh is the larger population, some of the others are better health, advanced medicine, and quicker responses to combat the disease.
I think it’s pretty amazing that governments around the world have prioritised the health of their citizens, and particularly the health of citizens who are no longer in the work force (as the disease mainly kills the over 70s) over the health of their economies. For all the bickering over policy, not to mention the puerile ‘debate’ about the virus, I think the response generally has been surprisingly compassionate. Maybe we aren’t such a bad parasite after all.
The problem is they throw out hoaxes as fast as they can. The facts never add up, so they just keep developing more scare stories. And, we already know about the contrived “statistics”.
In the US, a hospital gets cash for every positive Covid test. A test where everyone tests positive, with enough “testing”. They get extra money for every patient that goes on a ventilator. Did you know that 90% of the people put on ventilators die?
Medical science is like most institutionalized science — “follow the money”.
clint r…”In the US, a hospital gets cash for every positive Covid test”.
***
According to one US doctor, they get $13,000 for an a positive test and $39,000 if the person needs to be admitted.
barry…”More than 10 times that number have died of COVID since March 2020″.
***
Dr. Kary Mullis, who invented the PCR method used in covid tests claimed Fauci is a liar and that he lies all the time. He challenged Fauci right to his face, calling him a liar for claiming the RNA-PCR test can tests for a virus or an infection. Fauci took no action.
Of course, Fauci is in charge of the covid crisis in the US and he has a lot to say about the number of infections and deaths.
The truth is that Fauci lead the US down the garden path because he panicked based on a fraudulent claim by an unvalidated computer model (by Neil Ferguson of the Royal College) that over 2 million people would be dead in the US by the spring of 2020 if masks and social distancing was not implemented. By the spring of 2020, only a few thousand deaths had been reported in the US.
Ferguson has been egregiously wrong with his model predictions since 2002. However, Fauci believed him and suggested lock down. Now he has to prevent egg on the face by making the number of deaths match the prediction.
There has been tremendous pressure on Fauci to say what the US government wants to hear. I think he has helped inflate the number of US deaths and there is evidence to support that claim.
In March 2020, Fauci claimed there was no need for alarm, that covid was no different than the flu. A bit later he confided that asymptomatic people have never been known to cause the spread of infection. Since then he has done a 360 and hysterical politicians are spreading the propaganda that people with no symptoms, and who are unvaccinated are responsible for spreading covid.
You claim the vaccines work. Can you provide scientific evidence of that? There is no reason why they should work because the science upon which they are based has been proved wrong.
Gordon: you comment that ‘You claim the vaccines work. Can you provide evidence of that? There is no reason why they should work because the science upon which they are based has been proved wrong.’
I am amazed by this. You are disregarding advances in immunology, virology, and molecular biology which have been proven and demonstrated in laboratories around the world over many years.
You absolutely must start reading proper scientific literature. There are for example numerous standard texts on immunology written by specialists within the field.
Be warned however – it’s a complicated subject.
There is for example no doubt whatsoever that the measurement of antibodies to selected epitopes of viral antigens can offer accurate assessment of the humoral response in patients and its impact on survival.
If you don’t know precisely what an antibody, antigen, epitope or the humoral response is – and clearly you don’t – then it’s time to do some work.
Clint R :
“In the US, a hospital gets cash for every positive Covid test.”
barry from before:
“A problem that many debaters have of this issue is that they only look at their own country, and ignore the rest of the world, except where some tidbit seems to (but often doesn’t really) support their views (hiya Sweden!).”
The number of death certificates signed in the last 18 months is in excess of normal for the preceding years in the US. That excess of deaths closely matches the number of deaths attributed to COVID.
That’s not a conspiracy.
That’s also the case for most countries that have a larger number of deaths attributed to COVID.
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-tracker
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-raw-death-count
https://www.ft.com/content/a2901ce8-5eb7-4633-b89c-cbdf5b386938
The signed death certificates spike at the same time as COVID mortality numbers spike.
Amazing coincidence! Maybe all those doctors in all those countries are being paid to report COVID deaths.
I should start a conspiracy blog. Or just post some dickhead saying that on facebopok. And ignore worldwide statistics, of course.
It’s not clear if it is a conspiracy or incompetence and corruption. Any time so much money and power is involved, all three can exist together.
Don’t overlook the failure of modern “health care”. I can’t get to see a doctor without filling out a mountain of forms and providing proof of insurance. Then, I have to waive a battery of tests. I even have to sign a waiver to avoid getting X-rays, just to get my teeth cleaned. Modern “health care” is NOT about patient care, it is about avoiding law suits and making money. They excel in “patient abuse”.
Also, don’t forget that medical malpractice kills more people than Covid.
For the US in 2020, here’s nationally reported Covid deaths overlaying All-Cause-Excess-Deaths:
2020 US Excess And Covid Deaths.png
One can do this state by state and the correlation holds, albeit noiser with the smaller states.
Mark,
I’ve looked at countries with low COVID deaths (like Australia, New Zealand), and the excess death rate is either unchanged or actually negative. I surmise that this is because lockdowns and hygiene practises have reduced other causes of death. In Australia, the UK, NZ and a few other countries with accessible stats, airborne diseases are greatly down. Seasonal flu is way down – 10 times less in the past 18 months than in preceding years for Australia. There are caveats to those statistics in these unusual times, but such a significant departure surely has something to do with the same policies that mitigate the spread of COVID-19.
https://tinyurl.com/scvrpk8b
It’s worth spelling out what this graphs shows.
The numbers on the y axis are the number of deaths above normal for each week.
These are all-cause deaths – basically how many death certificates above average were issued regardless of cause. It’s a very stable statistic.
Excess deaths exceed the weekly number of deaths assigned to COVID, suggesting that COVID deaths are under-counted.
This is the case for many countries that have a large death toll from COVID.
“Imagine if the world had NOT masked up, socially distanced, had rolling lockdowns…”
Not hard to imagine. Sweden. Their results are not significantly different from most western countries.
Actually the more stringent the measures the higher the rate of deaths. Quebec is comparable in population to Sweden, for example, and had a higher death rate.
The preponderance of scientific literature says masks and quarantine of healthy people does not slow the spread of viruses.
The death rate under 70 is 1:10000 not much different from a bad flu year.
I am much more concerned by the draconian stripping away of rights, such as vaccine mandates and passports, mask mandates, quarantine of healthy people, censorship etc than I am about COVID.
Ken…Imagine if the world had NOT masked up, socially distanced, had rolling lockdowns…
Not hard to imagine. Sweden. Their results are not significantly different from most western countries”.
***
The only scientific way to determine what would happen is to divide people into two groups. One group masks and practices social distancing and the other does not. Then we could have a scientific assessment of the problem. I am willing to bet the outcomes would be the same.
As you say, Sweden has already done that and there is no significant difference between deaths per capita in Sweden and the UK. In your video, data was studied between North Dakota and South Dakota where one has no lock down, masks, or social distancing. No significant difference between the two.
The social distancing theory is based on a 120 year old opinion by a doctor that has never been tested. It makes sense that if someone is infected and spitting in your face as he/she talks but there is no evidence that general social distancing makes a difference.
Masks are a serious joke. A typical virus is about 100 billionth of a metre. The theories are based on aerosol with much larger diameters. The N95 mask used another technique to trap viruses, they use electrostatics in the mask. Cloth masks, even surgeons’ masks, offer zero protection against a virus.
Still, there is no proof that viruses float around in the air. I am far more concerned with touching surfaces that may be contaminated with whatever.
Gordon Robertson
Have you seen this video?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6cTDGqcUpA&t=160s
When you do an experiment better to remove variables. Sweden and US are different.
We have evidence with the same population. USA has done both no mitigation and mitigation. Results are dramatic.
https://ourworldindata.org/covid-hospitalizations
When Hospitals start getting overcrowded with patients they complain to Government. Government creates mask mandates and other measures and the cases go down.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/us/
You can also see it in the rates of new infections overall and death rates. They rise rapidly, mitigation efforts take place, cases and deaths drop. Again, logic. If mitigation had no effect at all, as you claim, why do changes take place when mitigation is enacted?
Gordon Robertson
I know you will ignore this or pretend I have never asked so I will try and get an answer from you.
If the disease measles is not caused by a virus, how did a weakened form of a “non-existent” virus almost eliminate the disease? I know you have not answered this one yet and am not expecting any answer from you. You will ignore it and in a couple months repeat your nonsense and pretend I never asked this logic question.
On masks, virus particles do not just float around in the air. They are attached to droplets they ride on that are much larger than the virus and are caught by cloth masks. Masks do not stop Covid transmission, they just greatly reduce the spread.
“The only scientific way to determine what would happen is to divide people into two groups. One group masks and practices social distancing and the other does not. Then we could have a scientific assessment of the problem.”
Here is the study that did that in Denmark: https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-6817
“Limitation:
Inconclusive results, missing data, variable adherence, patient-reported findings on home tests, no blinding, and no assessment of whether masks could decrease disease transmission from mask wearers to others.”
Meh
“One group masks and practices social distancing and the other does not. Then we could have a scientific assessment of the problem. I am willing to bet the outcomes would be the same.
As you say, Sweden has already done that ”
BS.
Many Swedes wore masks and social distanced, regardless of any mandate.
They are not as ignorant as many Americans.
Heh, presumably you read my post:
“A problem that many debaters have of this issue is that they only look at their own country, and ignore the rest of the world, except where some tidbit seems to (but often doesnt really) support their views (hiya Sweden!).”
Sweden did mask up, socially distanced, capped numbers, people washed hands. Just that not all of it was mandated by gov. Swedes are practical people, and many take the advice of the government. There might be a cult of people who think the government is out to steal their freedoms with any restrictions, but they don’t seem to be as numerous or vociferous as the Confederate flag wavers in the US.
Even so, their deaths per million are worse than neighbouring countries with similar pops and population densities.
Sweden is ranked 40th in the world for that morbid metric, Finland and Norway 129th and 139th. Denmark 107th. Netherlands 63rd, but the population density in that country is more than 10 times the other 3.
Sweden and the Netherlands are about equal for cases per million (rank 22nd and 20th respectively). Norway and Finland are ranked 112 and 122 respectively. Denmark is 78th, with 5 times the population density of Sweden.
I don’t think Sweden has done that well, even with a conscientious population and minimal gov restrictions. It’s a go-to for net debaters who don’t like COVID and gummint, but they don’t look too hard at the issue.
TYeah, Sweden is 40th … recall we’re talking a difference between the 40 above and below that is statistically insignificant.
Peru at #1 is an outlier with double the death rate of #2.
A lot of the countries in top 40 are western countries that typically have older populations and higher populations of people that are obese.
There is nothing in the ranking that suggests masks or social distancing helped any country. In truth the more stricter the measures taken the higher the country appears on the list.
I just compared the neighbouring countries that are similar to Sweden and you’re talking about Peru.
“Countries in northern Europe have generally experienced much lower mortality rates throughout the pandemic. Some Nordic nations have experienced almost no excess deaths at all. The exception is Sweden, which imposed some of the continents least restrictive social-distancing measures during the first wave.”
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-tracker
Social distancing certainly helped countries like Australia and NZ, which had fairly strong policy responses and low population densities.
Science denialism isn’t limited to climate. COVID is a hot political topic, so the consensus medical view is of course dismissed by fuckwits with axes to grind.
Here you go, an article on Peru.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-53150808
Annoying thing with the News is they are lazy! They have stopped digging in and researching things.
Here:
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/02/world/ida-climate-change-floods-rain-intl/index.html
Acting like heavy rains in the interior are a new phenomena.
Here is some history that the media ignores. Their bad reporting techniques get really old. It convinces fanatics like Willard, more thoughtful people want better information.
Here is the reality.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/TCstaterainfall.gif/1280px-TCstaterainfall.gif
You can see that heavy rain following the remnants of a hurricane are the normal NOT an exceptional occurrence. You can see the heavy rains cover many different years and effect certain areas based upon how the storm tracked.
You should not mention my name, Norma:
https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/210823132000-climate-heavy-precipitation-events-exlarge-169.jpg
That makes me look, and this could make you look like an old fool.
Willard
I don’t feel like a fool. My point is very valid. Your point is not relevant to my point. It is a sideline debate, another issue.
It has nothing to do with extreme rainfall caused by the remnants of hurricanes. Stay on topic. I linked to a graph showing extreme rainfall events from various hurricanes.
On your point (which is not related to mine). So what does it mean when they say “Observed Change in Annual Precipitation Falling in the Heaviest 1% of Events”
https://toolkit.climate.gov/image/2842
Translate it into what that means like in inches of rain. It sounds like some combination of values…annual rainfall and extreme events somehow figuring out a percentage of something.
The toolkit does not give enough information on what the values mean.
Norma,
However you might feel, you’re dancing around a very simple claim:
“the frequency and intensity of heavy precipitation events have increased since the 1950s over most land area”
There’s no amount of “but it already happened” or “but it’s normal” that will counter that claim.
The image I just linked supports:
No amount of minimization or “the truth is out there” will counter that claim.
If you want to counter these claims, be my guest.
Don’t pretend you did, for you did not.
So the claims stand.
Enjoy your evening,
Willard
I think you need to back off being a fanatic and actually read and comprehend what someone is posting.
Still I would like an answer as to what 55% of Observed Change in Annual Precipitation Falling in the Heaviest 1% of Events means.
How much more rain is this in an actual number. This metric is not helpful to me that is why I ask for an explanation of the meaning of the terms so I can consider this point.
The number is normalized for each geographic sector so one would have to look at a particular sector to get an absolute number. Normalizing in this way allows comparison across climate regions, much like temperature anomalies.
In a practical sense, local infrastructure and building tendencies are developed to accommodate the locally “normal” range of climate and there tends to be issues when “normal” change.
Methodology and data sources for the metrics are described in this document: Heavy Precipitation technical documentation (pdf)
Norman,
I agree that the news media often oversimplifies science or gets it wrong. Some do better.
Not surprising, humans want to understand events in simple terms.
You should distinguish what the science is saying from how the media reports it.
The science evidence is that extreme rain events are increasing.
Mark B
Thanks for the interest. I was looking into it more and it seems to be increase in 1 in 5 year rains. That would not indicate that 1 in a 1000 year rainfall (which is how the record rainfalls are considered) is increasing in intensity or frequency.
I can accept that a warmer world will bring more moisture to some areas as more water can evaporate.
https://www.c2es.org/content/extreme-precipitation-and-climate-change/
Statistically quantifying very rare (i.e. 1 in 1000 year) rainfall events is problematic, but it’s hard to imagine a physical process by which moderately improbable (i.e. 1 in 5 year) events increase significantly without also raising probability of even more extreme events.
It’s not that post-hurricane heavy rain hasn’t happened before, it’s that it is becoming more intense.
Anecdotal evidence, but illustrating the trend.
In August Hurricane Henri dropped a record 40mm of rainfall on Central Park in New York. The record didn’t last long. A few weeks later Hurricane Ida dropped 80 mm.
Entropic man
My complaint is not with reality. It is the lazy news media. They make claims with no research.
The anecdotal evidence would not mean much in determining heavy rainfall events from hurricane remnants because it would just depend on the path of the hurricane. Usually relatively small areas get hit with very large rainfall.
If you wanted to make the claim that Ida rainfall amounts (which they could be, not saying they are not) are much worse than previous hurricanes you would have to do real work and put out effort to collect available data. They have good data on this since at least a few decades.
The reports should gather the data or not make the claim. That is what I think is very bad with the media. Every bad weather event is now attributed to climate change.
A person on WUWT did a nice analysis of the flooding in Germany this year. This is the quality I would expect when making any claims. Either you have evidence to support them or don’t make the claims until you do.
Ent and his silly millimeters!
The record one-day rainfall for Central Park is 8.28″. That’s 210 silly millimeters.
https://www.weather.gov/media/okx/Climate/CentralPark/DailyHighestPrecip.pdf
Entropic Man’s post is unclear in that it doesn’t specify the time period, but he’s quoting the 1 hour rainfall record while Clint R is quoting the 24 hour rainfall record.
The Central Park 24 hour rainfall for Sept 1, 2021 was 7.19″, so short of the previous record, but over 5″ of that came in a two hour period.
Thanks, Mark.
I did mention intensity and should have made clear that it was an hourly rate.
On units, only an American would complain about millimetres, and a non-scientist American at that.
That’s another blow to your credibility, Clint R.
rlh…”And so we see the result which indicates to you and this is the basic problem with models is theyre not based on fundamental physics, theyre based upon approximations of what happens in the atmosphere.
-John Christy”
***
John is a good guy. It irks me to see idiots knocking him using propaganda. John has a deep integrity. He pays his own way when he is called upon to testify only to have scientific ignoramuses like Hillary Clinton treat him disrespectfully.
In the quote above, John is being gracious. The truth is that the models are programmed with sheer bs. They are programmed to show a warming factor from CO2 between 9% and 25%, numbers picked from a hat. There is not a shred of scientific evidence that a trace gas can produce that much warming, in fact, the Ideal Gas Law for a constant volume suggests a warming factor in line with its mass percent of 0.04%. That means, for every 1C warming in the atmosphere, CO2 contributes about 0.04C.
The second physics blunder in models is claiming a positive feedback in the atmosphere. Of course, the positive feedback inference suggests an amplification in warming. In order to amplify heat, you have to add more heat by conduction, convection, or radiation. No one has explained how the mythical positive feedback does this.
Positive feedback is defined in physics in two basic ways. One way is the simple servo-motor principle is which a direct current voltage is fed back from a sensor to indicate a position, RPM, etc. The servo circuitry determines the amount of correction current required to ‘correct’ the deviance of the device indicated by the sensor. In this case, the feedback is a negative or positive voltage only and could never produce the thermal runaway claimed by alarmists.
We are not talking about that kind positive feedback. We are talking about situations like those used in electronics where an alternating current requires an amplifier for amplification. A small AC input signal is fed into the amplifier input and amplified. A small portion of the amplified signal is fed back to the input to either enhance or negate the input signal. By negate, I mean the feedback reduces the level of the small input signal, hence the amplification of the input signal.
It’s more complex (reactance) but the basic principle is the same. The relationship of the feedback to the output signal is given by:
G = A/(1 – AB)
G is the overall gain
A = amplifier gain (amplification factor)
B = feedback signal.
If B is -ve (negative feedback), the denominator becomes 1 + AB
If B is +ve, the denominator is 1 – AB
Since 1 + AB > 1, G will always be lower than the case with
(1 – AB) < 1. This is the case for positive feedback, provided AB 1, G -> infinity. This is the thermal runaway claimed by alarmists.
The major problem is that no such amplifier exists in the atmosphere. No alarmists has ever explained how heat is amplified, especially to a level where thermal runaway can occur.
Obviously, they have tweaked the models, as John suggests, so they won’t show thermal runaway but they have used an incorrect application of positive feedback to achieve the exaggerated warming they have claimed.
Sadly, NOAA and GISS are tweaking the surface record to reflect the models.
Such ignorance! Do you not understand the difference between heat and temperature?
Do you realize that the enhanced greenhouse effect:
does not affect the Earth’s average temperature
yet it can cause the surface temperature to increase
and cause the upper atmospheric temperature to decrease
there is no necessity for any heat to be added to the system.
pp states: “yet it can cause the surface temperature to increase and cause the upper atmospheric temperature to decrease. there is no necessity for any heat to be added to the system.”
That’s wrong, pp. To organize energy in that way requires additional energy. You are violating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
see below under DW
Additional energy created would violate 1LOT not the 2LOT, but then Clint R has never demonstrated passing a college level thermodynamics course.
“To organize energy in that way requires additional energy”
Ever heard of sunshine?
“You are violating the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.”
Climate deniers say the darndest things!
Explain the violation going on here, genius.
There is plenty of energy input available to organize matter/energy and power heat engines.
Remember weather, wind, hurricanes, trees, animals?
Troll Nate’s brain has short-circuited again.
“Explain the violation going on here, genius.”
And just as expected, loser Clint makes another bullshit claim that he cannot explain or support.
Troll Nate, I can’t teach physics to idiots.
You’re unable to even learn that basic fact.
Translation:
After numerous fails, Clint finally learned that he can’t man-splain Fizuks to people who understand physics.
Just leave it at “I can’t teach physics”
prof p…”Such ignorance! Do you not understand the difference between heat and temperature?”
***
The only difference is that temperature is a human invention to measure the relative levels of heat. Ball4, in his delusion, thinks heat is measuring itself, since he defines heat as a measure of heat. Doesn’t seem to get it that temperature measures heat.
Temperature is not heat, Gordon.
prof p…”Do you realize that the enhanced greenhouse effect:”
***
We are talking about unvalidated climate models and the poor science applied in their programs. However, I’ll indulge you.
There are two basic versions of the enhanced GHG:
1)back-radiation from GHGs is absorbed by the surface, raising its temperature to a level higher than it is heated by solar energy. The enhanced GHG claims further that GHGs are heated by surface radiation. That contradicts your claim above that no heat needs to be added.
The AGW version of global warming requires that heat be allegedly back-radiated from GHGs in a cooler atmosphere. However, the heat is fictitious since heat cannot be recycled from ‘surface – GHG – surface’ since that represents perpetual motion and it contradicts the 2nd law.
2)The more lame version of the EGHE is that GHGs trap heat, which is utter nonsense. Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms/molecules and molecules of GHGs cannot trap atoms/molecules of heat. Glass can, but not molecules in a gas.
A more reasonable explanation is that GHGs reduce the rate of heat dissipation from the surface but that would mean the surface itself has to warm, not the atmosphere. So what is it we measure, atmospheric temperature or surface temperature? Do we bore a hole in the surface and insert a thermometer?
That theory itself is incorrectly based on S-B but S-B says nothing about the rate of heat dissipation from the surface, it gives only the intensity of the emitted radiation. We do know that the rate of heat dissipation at the surface is affected by the atmospheric temperature which is in contact with the surface.
The atmospheric gases in contact with the surface are 99% nitrogen and oxygen and GHGs have little or nothing to do with heat dissipation at the surface.
EGHE kaput!!!
Gordon, properly the S-B law is for the total radiant energy found from integrating the Planck function over all frequencies. S-B law is NOT as you write: “only the intensity of the emitted radiation.”
The atmospheric gases in contact with the surface are 99% nitrogen and oxygen; they and GHGs have much to do with total radiant energy dissipation at the surface because the surface is not in contact with the vacuum of space!
The GHGs in our atm. have trapped ~33K of degrees of temperature on avg. in the atm. as long as we’ve been measuring surface temperature due to their added ppm increasing the IR opacity of our atm. over a ~transparent atm. Those 33K degrees are measured increasing a bit as the black climate line in top post has recently moved up.
The 33K is a distortion of reality. Comparing an imaginary object to Earth is anti-science.
Except Clint R’s purported imaginary object actually exists naturally (Earth and atm. system) and has been measured with real radiometer instruments from orbit and with surface thermometers proving Earth’s ~33K is real (and Mars ~5K GHE is real) showing the IR opacity of the non-transparent atm.s.
Also Earth’s ~33K GHE is as calculated from 1LOT with all measured inputs. Clint R comments are actually the distortion of reality.
The 33K is a distortion of reality.
Comparing an imaginary object to Earth is anti-science, as demonstrated by Ball4.
Earth is not an imaginary object except in Clint R comments.
Distorting my words is cult-like behavior, as Ball4 demonstrates.
Distorting reality as does Clint R is the real cult-like behavior since there are no imaginary blackbodies compared in determining the earthen ~33K GHE.
Gordon Robertson
Runaway global warming is unlikely for now.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komabayashi-Ingersoll_limit
The Earth won’t run away to Venus conditions until the energy absorbed and radiated by the climate system exceeds 340W/m^2.
So far we’re at 240W/m^2, so there’s plenty of margin.
You know that’s all nonsense, don’t you Ent?
Spoken by the man too parochial to understand millimetres!
Now Ent, is that really true?
Yes.
You’ve made it clear that you hate millimetres and other SI scientific units.
Incidentally, My links stated that there will be no runaway greenhous effect. You claim this is nonsense.
When do you expect the runaway greenhouse to occur?
Why do you need to make things up?
Is it because you have NOTHING?
Hey, Pup –
Do you know how we measure infinitesimal intelligence?
The military!
Get it?
measure infinitesimal intelligence?
Have a 5 minute conversation with a liberal
You anarchists can’t make it to five minutes.
entropic…”The Earth wont run away to Venus conditions until the energy absorbed and radiated by the climate system exceeds 340W/m^2″.
***
Pseudo-science. Never been observed, no positive feedback available.
The positive feedback is that warming causes an increase in water vapor which causes more warming.
If you don’t think that’s a positive feed back, I can’t help you.
entropic…from your link…”For planets with temperature-dependent sources of greenhouse gases such as liquid water and optically thin atmospheres the outgoing longwave radiation curve (which indicates how fast energy can be radiated away by the planet) flattens at high temperatures….”
***
There is no scientific proof that the Earth depends only on GHGs to maintain its temperature. We are back to the inane idea that Solar SW in must equal LW IR out. Whereas that makes sense for a simple energy balance we have other issues going on.
We have an atmosphere comprised of 99% nitrogen and oxygen that is being ignored by such a theory. That’s just plain dumb. We know the N2/O2 absorbs heat from the surface and the heated air rises. As it rises, it expands and cools naturally. Furthermore we have a planet situated at just the right distance from the Sun and which rotates at just the right angular velocity to maintain its guestimated +15C average.
I think the process of warming via the Sun is being misunderstood. Incoming solar is maintaining the +15C, therefore I see no need for outgoing IR to balance incoming solar EM in realtime. Also, the oceans and the atmosphere can store heat.
Far more complicated than a realtime balance of energy.
“We have an atmosphere comprised of 99% nitrogen and oxygen that is being ignored by such a theory.”
Not ignored in theory or measurement, atm. scientists reasonably well know how much of the 33K is due to N2,O2 and their contribution to a reduction in OLR from the surface. It is Gordon that ignores the science.
ball4…”Not ignored in theory or measurement, atm. scientists reasonably well know how much of the 33K is due to N2,O2 and their contribution to a reduction in OLR from the surface”.
***
How would they calculate the effect and where are the calculations? All we have heard the past 40 years is propaganda from the alarmists in the IPCC and their myopic theory that trace gases control warming in the atmosphere. Since it’s inception, the IPCC has been reliant on unvalidated climate models and their mandate is to find evidence of anthropogenic warming.
The IPCC nor any alarmist is interested in an natural causes for global warming even though the cause is staring them in the face…re-warming from the Little Ice Age.
Gordon Robertson.
If you did an energy budget for an electrical system you would expect to account for every Joule. You would know the amount of energy entering the system, every Joule spent doing useful work and ultimately all the energy stored or lost as heat.
I would expect you to be able to do the same for Earth. Please describe, with the numbers, your version of Earth’s energy budget. I would be particularly interested in your claim that radiation is not the only way in which Earth loses Joules to space.
ET: Energy can be more that Heat/Joules. Why is the Moon getting further away?
“How would they calculate the effect and where are the calculations?”
The “they” use the science of spectroscopy & specialized instruments all obviously unknown to Gordon.
In our atmosphere, the infrared signal of O2 has first been detected through balloon-borne limb-sounding observations [Rinsland et al., 1982]. 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]. Exact O2, N2 OLR calculations duplicating these observations were later developed line by line [Clough et al., 2005].
The N2 absor_ption band in the sub-mm range has been analyzed in atmospheric measurements by Pardo et al. [2001]. “They” used ground-based Fourier transform spectroscopy at Mauna Kea to determine the continuum like absor_ption up to frequencies exceeding 1 THz.
All of this science is, as usual, unknown to Gordon who would rather just make up the science to suit Gordon’s imagination (i.e. generating Gordon comment propaganda) which is way easier than doing the work to pass a college level course in the subject.
I don’t think that limit applies, since we on Earth have a non temperature dependent source of greenhouse gases.
“For planets with temperature-dependent sources of greenhouse gases such as liquid water and optically thin atmospheres the outgoing longwave radiation curve (which indicates how fast energy can be radiated away by the planet) flattens at high temperatures, reaching a horizontal asymptote the KomabayashiIngersoll limit itself.”
Also, there is a knee in the water vapor pressure curve that I would be concerned about reaching.
Its funny. I learned that the original anarchists, the ones who wanted to tear down the government, were all Leftists.
“Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that is sceptical of authority and rejects all involuntary, coercive forms of hierarchy. Anarchism calls for the abolition of the state, which it holds to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful. Wikipedia”
Sounds a lot like many of our regulars here.
How much co2 must we emit to prevent the mile thick ice sheet of the last ice age from occurring again?
Not necessarily. If the surface had minimal heat capacity – not much heat would be needed to raise the temperature.
However, on Earth, we have high heat capacity oceans – so, yes, heat is required to raise the surface temperature.
The point being that all of this will go straight over GR’s head.
DW – simple. The Earth was about 8 deg cooler at the peak of the last ice age. Doubling CO2 gets us about 3 deg warming. Quadrupling gets us about 6 deg.
Lets say 5 times gets us about 8 deg.
Pre-industrial levels were about 275 ppm
So, a rough estimate would be about 1375 ppm.
However, there is no urgency – we have at least 20,000 years to get there – so shouldn’t be a problem.
Doubling CO2 only gets us 1.4C. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.03098.pdf
The last interglacial only lasted 10k years. We’re almost there in this interglacial.
Ken, The Wijngaarden/Happer paper you reference is on a pre-print server. It apparently hasn’t made it thru peer review and actual publication. They have a later version of the paper in which they added more gases to the computation. There’s lots of work there and many opportunities for errors.
They begin with an assumed clear sky model based on the US Standard Atmosphere (1976), which is itself a model of average conditions at temperate latitudes. All the other greenhouse gases, particularly water vapor, are fixed and they don’t calculate vertical convection, so their conclusion is just a snap shot based on those fixed conditions.
Ken, you do realize that is one of hundreds of papers calculating that number, with all different results?
Why is this the correct one?
Nate
Your post strongly suggests that instead of calling the study Climate Science it needs to be changed to Climate Speculation. Since hundreds of papers come up with different results it suggests that it is still in the “Art” form and not “Science”.
With science you don’t have hundreds of papers calculating Earth’s gravitational acceleration and getting different results.
It will be a science when they no longer have different results and the results match reality. Neither case seems to apply to Climate Science. The models cannot seem to accurately predict the correct warming (some do most don’t) and now you point out Climate Sensitivity has a broad range that can be all over the place.
Nope that is not science.
Norman,
You use the example of a constant. Constants tend to be, well, constant. It’s really hard to have more constant than a constant.
There are other things in life to be studied than constants. But even then, if you look for “gravity” and “acceleration” in the Scholar, you’d find 37K hits since 2017. So I’m quite sure that gravity and acceleration are still studied.
Try to look at some model studies when you have time. Otherwise you will end up sounding like Gordon.
Nothing is more constant than Willard being an idiot.
Willard
I am not sure looking at studies of model projections vs measured temperture values will help as this information seems as difficult to pinpoint as climate sensitivity.
If you are in one group the models are spot on, near perfect in matching observation.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/
Or the other view
https://cei.org/blog/manufacturing-alarm-dana-nuccitellis-critique-of-john-christys-climate-science-testimony/
It seems no one can agree with what the models project or what the actual observed temperature data is. You can also vary the anomalies by changing the baseline (anomaly away from the baseline value chosen).
Not sure anything is cleared up. Again this does not seem to be a scientific study. Even if you accept the Real Climate version, the graphs they show have a range for Climate Models of between 0.2 C warming to over 1 C. That is a huge range to consider.
I think I could study it a long time and it still would not make it scientific. Still more speculation and educated guessing.
It should be called Climate Art and not yet Science. The precision of science is lacking. Science can delve into the fuzzy world to see if it can glean some truth but until a really clear, precise set of predictions can come in, it is more Art than science.
“It should be called Climate Art and not yet Science.”
No its still science. But it is a complicated system the Earth. There are still uncertainties, about clouds, about aerosols.
We would all like it if it were more settled, but it isnt.
It took decades to settle the question of continental drift.
My point was simply that one paper estimating climate sensitivity on the low side of the distribution of estimates is hardly the end of the story.
Commenters here tend to think ‘I found one paper I like. That’s the answer!’.
Nope. Not how science works.
Nate
One difference between Plate tectonics and Climate Change is one is passive and nothing can be done about it. With Climate Change, nothing passive about it. This thought is changing the reality we live in it and it is strongly held belief people can alter it.
It has sweeping effects so getting highly accurate math and predictability is very important as the course of human history is changing based upon this “science”.
An analogy that might work better would be if a city killing asteroid had the chance of hitting New York City. You would have deniers that think it is a hoax and that no asteroid exists. But with people trying to determine the course of action, very accurate and precise data is needed. You don’t need a media amplifying or distorting the situation.
So what do you do. Evacuate New York City? If it is as fuzzy as Climate Science…Maybe it will hit New York in 10 days, or maybe 100. So now what? Evacuate millions of people for an undetermined time because it might happen as predicted. Then there is the possibility it might just miss the Earth all together. With such a situation fuzzy guessing or manipulation for profit will be of benefit.
I get frustrated with media when every (I mean every) bad weather event that takes place is caused by climate change and it is certain things will get worse. The media has a lot more pull than science journals in shaping the Public Mind and it is profitable to make out worst case scenarios as this captures the greater audience to manipulate with advertisements
I generally like reading your posts as you seem to be more on the side of science. You have the deniers that don’t even know physics (you know who you are) and you have the fanatics who may be very intelligent but have invested emotion into a cause and have lost the rational mind to conceive that things may not be as bad as they believe.
Figuring out the science behind the climate change claptrap is like a puzzle.
I like Happer’s paper because it fits with most of what I have learned about CO2’s effect on climate.
Technically we are in an ice age. There are glacial and interglacial cycles though. I think you actually meant to ask how much CO2 is required to prevent the next glaciation. 400 ppm makes it unlikely. In terms of the ending the current ice age and melting the existing ice sheets we actually cannot eliminate the possibility that 400 ppm is enough for that too. Confidence increases significantly at 560 ppm (2xCO2) when it becomes likely. No need to panic though…there is a lot of ice on Greenland and Antarctica so it will take thousands of years to melt it all.
It’s called Late Cenozoic Ice Age.
Though we are also in Quaternary Ice Age which began about 2.58 million years ago. Which has been the coldest “ice age” within the
Late Cenozoic Ice Age which has been going for 34 million years.
Technically it’s call an Icehouse climate.
To be in an icehouse climate it needs a polar cap and a cold ocean.
We have 2 polar caps and very cold ocean.
The ocean become it’s coldest during Quaternary Ice Age.
When Earth has been it’s warmest it’s called a Greenhouse climate.
A greenhouse climate has a warm ocean.
There does not appear be agreement on how warm the Ocean has to be.
And there is recent dispute about what has been Earth’s warmest ocean.
I would say greenhouse climate, would our present ocean at 15 C, and it’s currently at 3.5 C. And during Late Cenozoic Ice Age the ocean has over 5 C, warmer that 5 C for long periods of time. I would say ocean which 10 C is not cold ocean, it seems one could have 10 C ocean and a polar ice cap, and not clear whether one say that was Icehouse climate. I would say with 10 C ocean, you are not in a icehouse climate.
It seems that during our Quaternary Ice Age, our ocean has not reached 5 C or more. Or not reached and stayed at 5 C or more for a significant amount time {centuries}. Rather there agreement that during peak global temperature during interglacial periods ocean temperature have 4 C or more.
And I believe during our Holocene ocean temperature may been around 4 C. Or as say, we might reached peak Holocene temperatures more 5000 years ago: Or we have past our peak.
And I would predict that if our ocean which are around 3.5 C become around 4 C, forest will again regrow in the Arctic, and it’s likely the Sahara deserts will become grassland, though might require a bit higher ocean temperature, say 4.5 C to get grassland and forests in Sahara Desert.
darwin…”Weve been over this before. Expecting the world to become uniformly warmer is naive”.
***
First we have to know for sure that such conditions existed. Seems unlikely. The next thing is to figure out what caused it, if it did happen.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02402-z?utm_source=Nature+Briefing&utm_campaign=9a68c8d571-briefing-dy-20210906&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c9dfd39373-9a68c8d571-46385774
Global cooling caused by global warming…. hmm. Problem is any weather pattern can be “modeled” to be from CO2. What to do? It’s becoming clown world.
We’ve been over this before. Expecting the world to become uniformly warmer is naive.
Global warming is the increasing energy content of the climate system: ocean, land, ice and atmosphere. You see it in melting ice, warming oceans and higher global average temperatures.
Climate change is the consequences, which for a particular region may be hotter, colder, wetter or dryer.
Ent, you need the “app for fake graphs”.
https://dilbert.com/strip/2021-09-07
The site wouldn’t let me on. A notice said that I should try later when all the climate change deniers had finished.
AGW causing climate change is a fairy tale. Any theory this obtuse is not worth its ink.
Changing climate may indeed do all 4, hotter, colder, wetter or dryer.
Saying that they are all caused by humans however is not so simple.
We need nuclear powered tugboats to drag sea ice to Sahara desert, and do some climate change.
entropic …”Weve been over this before. Expecting the world to become uniformly warmer is naive.”
***
What else would one expect with CO2 as a well-mixed gas?
barry…”Science denialism isnt limited to climate. COVID is a hot political topic, so the consensus medical view is of course dismissed by fuckwits with axes to grind”.
***
My experience with you on climate issues is that you move the goalposts when cornered. You’re a whiny, sniveling,SOB who would not understand science if you accidentally stumbled into a beginners course on it.
Sweden, with a population of about 10 million and no lock down, has experienced 14,692 deaths. They hid nothing, they admitted most deaths had occurred in seniors facilities and that they had screwed up by not acting quickly enough. Then again, Sweden is a world leader with seniors’ facilities taking care of far more seniors than any other country.
The percentage of deaths claimed for covid is about 14,692/10,173,611 = 0.14%.
Out of the 14,692 deaths 14,112 involved deaths in age groups 60 and beyond = 14,112/14,692 = 96%. Taking people 80 and beyond, we have 9783 = 9783/14,692 = 67%.
It’s blatantly clear that deaths of people below 60 years of age, who were far more likely to be mingling, was about 4%. I think that’s a damned good record considering no lock downs.
On the other hand, the UK went into a Gestapo-like lock down, had 133,000 deaths out of a population base of about 67 million had a death percentage of 133,000/67,000,000 = 0.2%.
Sweden fared better with no lockdowns!!!!
Population density Sweden = 25 per sq km
Population density UK = 281 per sq km
The better comparison is with Sweden’s Nordic neighbours, with much similar population densities and cultures. Sweden’s numbers are far worse than those neighbours that locked down and had social distancing and mask mandates.
It’s been interesting to observe through the COVID period how much a human life is valued.
As you know, I think you’re an arrogant ignoramus, a dim-wit who latches on to maverick voices peddling conspiracy ideation, and then bangs the drum apropos of very little. I’d be pleased if you didn’t respond to my posts. I’ve left yours alone because the stink of so much crap makes me nauseous.
“Swedens Nordic neighbours”
And proximity to these less afflicted neighbors seems to matter.
Solar cycle progress updated
Last month was very quiet with a flare-up at the end of it, so far the cycle 25 similar to 24
https://i.postimg.cc/ZnmQYK8b/solar-cycle-comparison.png
eben…don’t keep us in suspenders…how did you make out with the hurricane?
It rained a lot
you don’t qualify for a rainy zone till webs grow between your toes.
Hope all worked out well. There was at least one case, where people drowned while hiding from the winds in their sunken basement. Tragic, and something that would not have occurred to me.
Rescuers couldn’t get to them for downed power lines.
ball4…”Gordon, properly the S-B law is for the total radiant energy found from integrating the Planck function over all frequencies. S-B law is NOT as you write: only the intensity of the emitted radiation.”
***
As usual, you are full of horse manure.
S-B was developed before Planck put out his equation and it is based on the radiation from a platinum filament wire heated electrically (by Tyndall). Since it is measuring the intensity of the EM given off by the heated filament at temperature, T, with a relationship of T^4, it is obvious S-B measures intensity and not a rate of heat dissipation.
Note that S-B confirms the 2nd law, that heat from the filament wire, which is much hotter than the ambient room temperature, is transferred from hot to cold. There is nothing in S-B that infers a transfer of heat from the much cooler room to the heated filament, ranging in temperature from about 700C – 1400C.
Therefore, those who think blackbodies have some magical power in which they can transfer heat between a BB at a lower temperature to a BB at a higher temperature are full of the same horse manure.
“(S-B) is based on the radiation from a platinum filament wire”
Gordon, astute top post commenters are talking about earthen atm. gases on this blog. Platinum filament wires do not inhabit our atm. nor do pistons and cylinders so your trusty ideal gas law has very limited use. Planck’s law has extensive use along with S-B as applied to a gas as I noted earlier for Gordon’s deaf ears.
“There is nothing in S-B that infers a transfer of heat from the much cooler room to the heated filament”
EMR is not heat Gordon.
“transfer heat between a BB at a lower temperature to a BB”
EMR is not heat Gordon.
Your BBs do not exist to transfer anything except in the imagination of Gordon.
It is probably past the comprehension of Gordon that though BBs DO NOT exist blackbody radiation DOES exist and has been measured! Original blackbody radiation testing was performed in lab air at temperatures from superheated steam to dry ice.
That original testing is really informative to read about but the lab apparatus will escape Gordon’s very limited comprehension in this field so don’t bother Gordon.
willard…”Thats just dumb, Gordo:
When P is false, Not-P is true and their conjunction is false a conjunct is only true when both propositions are true”.
***
I am talking about a real circuit. There would be no point in connecting it as such since it defeats the purpose of an AND gate.
Normally, you supply an AND gate with two independent inputs, A and B. You’re truth table is
A…..B…..A&B
1…..1…..1
0…..1…..0
1…..0…..0
0…..0…..0
In digital electronics there is a device called an inverter which inverts a 1 to a 0 (NOTs it) and vice versa. I don’t need to feed an AND gate to two independent inputs, I can feed it to AND input A, then put the same input through an inverted, and feed it to the AND input B.
Each time I feed a 1 to input A, input B gets a 0. Of course, the output is always 0. That may sound silly in theory but sometimes there are practical application involving tying both inputs of a gate together.
Also, although this theory is used in philosophy and math it is also used in real devices like digital electronics devices. In the DE field (Not)AND is a NAND gate and it works the opposite to an AND gate.
eg.
A…..B…..(A&B)…..NAND(NotA&B)
1…..1…….1……..0
1…..0…….0……..1
0…..1…….0……..1
0…..0…….0……..1
Remember that inverter? Take an AND gate and run its output through an inverter. The inverter NOTs the input so if the input is A&B, the inverter makes it NOT A&B.
ambiguous…”I dont need to feed an AND gate to two independent inputs…”
I meant, I don’t need to feed an AND gate from two independent inputs. That is, I can take a single digit source, that can change from 1 to 0 and vice-versa, and feed it to both gate inputs simultaneously.
Practically, one has to be aware of race conditions in situations like that wherein the gate may end up in an unstable state. However, with proper precautions it’s doable. Not much point in it, but doable.
> I am talking about a real circuit.
And I am talking about you agreeing with something silly, Gordo:
The only time when there’s a third value between two three-valued connectors is when one of them has that value. So A & NON-A can only have that value (U, 0.5, I, error, whatever) when A and NON-A has that value.
What you’re trying to expressed is called a universal gate. It’s called that way because you can reconstruct all the other connectors of the logic with it. (In other words, they’re functionally complete.) NAND and NOR are like that for Boolean logic. For three-valued logic, the connectors are more exotic:
https://cstheory.stackexchange.com/questions/9865/functional-completeness-of-3-valued-logic
3 valued logic where the 3 values are true, false and unknown.
And
If any input is false then false, otherwise if any input is unknown then unknown, otherwise true.
Or
If any input is true then true, otherwise if any input is unknown then unknown, otherwise false.
Not
True is False.
False is True.
Unknown is Unknown.
All the other logic requirements can be built from the above.
> If any input is false then false, otherwise if any input is unknown then unknown, otherwise true.
Many three-value logics have no implication, dummy.
Besides:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic#%C5%81ukasiewicz_logic
***
Also note:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%81ukasiewicz_logic#Real-valued_semantics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%81ukasiewicz_logic
https://thinkingispower.com/the-person-who-lies-to-you-the-most-is-you/
Which includes telling yourself that you are rational and the other lot are lying to themselves.
Entropic man
Another problem is created by the media itself. It has created millions of people that no longer trust it and go to other sources for information. This is the fault of the media who gave up rigor in giving the Public accurate (to the best of ability) and truthful informtion. Hard facts.
Now the media is about sensationalism to get more viewers to charge more for adds. A lot is the Public’s fault as sensational stories are more exciting and do grab attention. It is more exciting to read information that Democrats are in secret Satanic groups that kill and extract brain chemicals to get high. Unfortunately exciting news is not necessarily true or factual.
Like in this article:
https://www.eenews.net/articles/ida-smashes-rain-records-in-glimpse-of-future-warming/
The quote is “The extreme rainfall and flooding, heretofore rare events in the temperate Northeast, are a stark reminder of the influence of global warming on extreme weather.”
That would be an opinion disguised as a exciting fact.
The reality is it is not that exterme for the Northeast. Hurricanes are not rare and when they hit land they still persist for days with heavy rain.
Research shows it is not a stark reminder of the influence of global warming on extreme weather.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5f/TCstaterainfall.gif/330px-TCstaterainfall.gif
The article you cite as “opinion disguised as an exciting fact”, cites the specific station records that were broken by this event, links a research article supporting the claim of increased extreme precipitation events in the US Northeast, and cites the most recent National Climate Assessment document based on a broad range of supporting research.
I’m left wondering what level of journalistic rigor would be considered satisfactory.
“I expect we will see these sorts of events become more prevalent in the years ahead as our climate continues to warm, Robinson said.”
Except that the climate has been cooling for the last 3 years or so.
Mark B
Number one would be the use of “rare” for flooding in the Northeast.
The link I provided was only for the highest rainfalls from hurricane remnants. All states in the Northeast have rainfalls from hurricanes that is extreme and would cause flooding.
I think my first link was too small to see, try this one.
https://www.wpc.ncep.noaa.gov/tropical/rain/tcstatemaxima.gif
Siting specific stations that broke records is terrible science. The intense rainfalls are usually in narrow bands like this radar image shows so it is easy to find a location in the heavy bands and use this to try and prove something (note this would be terrible cherry picking).
https://www.wmur.com/article/new-hampshire-ida-tracking-maps/37454112
I read the IPCC point. One day extreme rainfalls can be expected to increase by 7% with each 1 C temp increase (based upon the ability of air to hold water based upon temperature).
Even with that possibility it would do very little to stop any flooding from hurricane remnants. If you take the statement out to the mathematical conclusion, a 10″ rainfall would then produce 10.7″ rainfall. The people living in this area would both be quite flooded and have much damage to property. (I have also read that the actual increase is only 3% not 7. 7 is a hypothetical potential, air almost never saturates to 100% humidity by evaporation. Usually it has to cool to reach that level).
My take on the article is it is manipulation not information. It is trying to link things together to get people to react emotionally, not logically, to information.
Maybe I am taking it wrong but it seemed to be very alarmist over things that are not rare and would not go away even if the Earth cooled to pre-industrial levels.
The article gave me the sense like this was a super rare thing for hurricane remnant heavy rains to make it to the Northeast US but history tells a much different tale.
https://www.nhc.noaa.gov/outreach/history/
Maybe read through these hurricanes and see that heavy rain is not at all rare and it would be easy to find a city in the Northeast that was not in the path of these numerous hurricane remnants and use it as an example for Ida to make it seem like a super rare occurrence when it really is not nor is it seemingly anything to do with global warming.
Even if one accepts that “rare” is a loaded word the article cites the study linked below that concludes that extreme precipitation events in the US Northeast region, by a variety of metrics, are becoming more common over recent decades.
Changes in Extreme Precipitation in the Northeast United States: 1979–2014
Mark B
Thanks for the link.
It seems most the events with extreme rain were caused by hurricanes or tropical storms.
It could be that hurricanes, that make landfall, are tracing more to the Northeast than from the 1979 to 1996 period.
The conclusion was what I like, they were not sure of the cause and did not made attribution. Just data to consider. The article did make a declaration as has many other media outlets.
Here is the concluding remarks: “Though this study provides an in-depth examination of changes in precipitation in the northeast United States, much work is still to be done in determining the causes of the observed increases in extreme precipitation. Though preliminary investigation shows an increase in landfalling tropical storms and tropical moisture events during the fall months, this is an area that needs further study. More detailed weather typing, inclusion of less extreme events, and an analysis of contributions to extreme precipitation, such as trends in atmospheric water content or upward vertical motion, are necessary.”
Without knowing they have not attributed this increase to global warming. It could be the cause but are not speculating or manipulating.
If media was more scientific in their reporting it would be a lot more dull to most people but those who want true and hard data will like it a lot more. It will have the trustworthy attribute.
There have always been a handful of unscientific contrarians like Gordon Robertson or Clint R who just make declaration after declaration without any proof or evidence, now we have millions of minds like them. They believe anything people make up and the more sensational the more “true” it seems to become. This is what happens when the Media sensationalizes information. Credibility is lost and no one trusts the sources anymore.
Case of point. From information that Hospitals receive more money for Covid patients some allege that this means Hospitals are lying and making up false claims to make money (which is fraud and if proven would lead the people involved to prison). Some go so far to think hospitals (for profit) may actually put people on ventilators to kill them so they can make more money (which would be murder and if proven would lead to long prison terms). But it is sensational reporting so it will be believed over the mundane possibility that most hospitals have integrity and are just reporting actual Covid cases as they come in and putting people on ventilators to try and save their lives when they can no longer breathe on their own.
Norman makes false accusations about me for no reason.
That’s good. I live in his mind rent-free….
Does this apply to the alarmists, or are they magically exempt?
Everyone has their biases and blind spots.
One can mitigate this by actively looking for and fairly evaluating evidence contrary to one’s beliefs. Skepticism is a positive attribute, but it must be rigorously focused on one’s self rather than self affirmation.
The first rule of the Dunning-Kruger club is you dont know youre a member of the Dunning-Kruger club. People miss that.
— David Dunning
That’s a great quote, Mark B. Some of the DK effect sufferers are some of the biggest deniers of reality.
We don’t need to mention any names, your own work was quite revealing, with the two top idiots making nearly 50% of the comments:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-827783
So how are those sea ice free summers predictions turning out ???
https://i.postimg.cc/504JpGm2/iceextent.png
https://tinyurl.com/4z57tez6
https://imgur.com/y9DzCWb
for the image in question
August PIOMAS report has Arctic sea ice at 5580 km^3 and on a 40 year trend of -3000 km^3 so apparently on schedule for ice free by mid-century:
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/research/projects/arctic-sea-ice-volume-anomaly/
August extent was high relative to recent years:
https://climate.copernicus.eu/sea-ice-cover-august-2021
We’re back (nearly) to interdecile range this year at present.
https://youtu.be/0ORngFcOxEQ
https://youtu.be/WFWDQxinNdA
https://imgur.com/y9DzCWb
“Were back (nearly) to”
We are back to reaching the 4th lowest ice volume minimum.
That means every year except 3, has had MORE ice volume than this year.
Nate: Any reason why, since the begging of August, ice extent has changed so dramatically?
https://imgur.com/y9DzCWb
Persistent low pressure over the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas spread the pack ice this year, increasing the extent but not the volume.
Ice extent, the number of square kilometres with more than 15% ice cover, is about equivalent to 2007, perhaps tenth in the record. Ice volume, calculated by PIOMASS is fourth.
Which is more informative?
Ice extent is easier to measure, but more variable due to weather.
Ice volume is harder to measure, but gives a better indication of the amount of energy used to melt ice.
If you want to know the weather in the Arctic, go to the extent data.
If you are interested in the long term change in the Arctic energy budget, go to the volume data.
Remember the main purpose of ice data is to tell mariners where they can go and where they cant. Hence the emphasis on the location of the ice pack boundary and extent rather than volume.
The use of the data to investigate climate change is secondary.
Area is sensitive to the vagaries of Arctic weather in August. Ice is pushed by currents into more compact or more spread out areas.
Ice volume is a better measure of climate impacts, in that sense.
Ice volume reached 4th lowest this year.
volume minimum is exactly average
pic tells all
https://i.postimg.cc/sDJsgDX1/thick-SM-EN-20210908.png
That’s the average for 2004-2013.
Do you think ten years is a long enough baseline to judge a long term ice volume trend?
It is certainly long enough to point out the idiotic ice free predictions that was supposed to happen years ago which is the point of my post you retard.
Go post your shist somewhere else
Shist is metamorphic rock. Why should I take it elsewhere?
“the idiotic ice free predictions that was supposed to happen years ago”
Really Eben? More strawmen like that?
Die kalte Sonne notes that we are still a long way from the once projected iceless Arctic – of the sort that climate-crisis bedwetter Al Gore predicted.
Ice volume same as 80 years ago
When one looks at Arctic ice volume going back 170 years, today’s levels are in fact very similar to those seen in 1940:
https://bit.ly/3A3tmn2
Notickszone is all tricks, dude.
We are down another 6000 km^3 since 2000.
http://psc.apl.uw.edu/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/schweiger/ice_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.1.png
Eben says: Ice volume same as 80 years ago
When one looks at Arctic ice volume going back 170 years, today’s levels are in fact very similar to those seen in 1940:
https://bit.ly/3A3tmn2
No
1) That graph at the ‘No Tricks Zone’ is showing interannual variability of detrended data. That is they are showing the volume variability of whatever ice remains after having removed the averaged decreasing trend in absolute volume. The ice that remains in recent decades is a whole lot less than seen in 1940.
2) In any case the data is produced by a model validated to observations in the satellite era.
Source paper is here: Brief communication: Arctic sea ice thickness internal variability and its changes under historical and anthropogenic forcing
RLH
” And, like Blinny, everybody seems happy to use straight OLS lines for spherical geometry (i.e. Latitude). Not sure why.
…
P.S. As Latitude is a spherical calculation, shouldn’t your ‘fit’ be something other than a straight line?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/latitude.jpg
*
That, RLH, was really too much. Either you are brazen or incompetent – or both.
Your ‘explanation’ sounds perfectly like what Robertson, Clint R and a few other Ignoramuses write about Moon’s motion.
How is it possible to pretend ‘I learned statistics’ on the one hand, and to claim that a quadratic fit over a set of points would give any hint on their data’s spherical behavior? Incredible.
Under the guise of a supposedly experienced, knowledgeable engineer, you are spreading absolute nonsense.
*
Look at this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_SV4qzfLeXBrsbnt_GTDZZ-kuHB4CMC0/view
and then… at this:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18sLjiEpuGE1y14fRiw1qdfn7FmSRKHZI/view
Oh My God! The latitude weighting now shows a leak towards North! But not toward South! How is that POSSIBLE?
*
Here is how to take latitude based differences correctly into consideration:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1dSphodW8zNo8WHFPVghghO_mWRIy5fZh/view
Do you see, RLH? The two polynomials still move down / up, despite the latitude weighting.
No polynomial on Earth could ever tell you anything about a cosine-based weighting. They simply run over anonymous numbers… whether you like it or not.
That the curves move down resp. up has not anything to do with latitude. It has to do with the way a quadratic fit finds inside of a set of points.
*
You wrote somewhere above in this thread:
” Got any actual reasons why Tmean is so inaccurate when compared to Taverage for daily temperatures?
And why the difference is related to Latitude? ”
*
You just need to have a look at the graph above to see that this is unequivocally valid for the comparison between Tmedian and Taverage, isn’t it?
And… as you in between carefully avoided to even mention Tmedian, which was your hobby horse just a few weeks ago, how will you manage to contradict my evaluation?
By just replying:
“Latitude accounts for no more than 21 % in USCRN temperature data. Get over it. ”
Which ‘temperature’ did they mean, RLH? Our ‘average minus mean’ difference? Really?
“claim that a quadratic fit over a set of points would give any hint on their datas spherical behavior? Incredible.”
Latitude is a spherical calculation. Yes/No.
Cosine is a spherical calculation. Yes/No.
Just as straight lines have nothing to do with Cosines, they have nothing to do with Latitude either. Unless you take them over a full cycle(s) I suppose.
“No polynomial on Earth could ever tell you anything about a cosine-based weighting.”
True of sorts, but a polynomial will be closer than a straight line over ranges such as 26-71 degrees North.
“That the curves move down resp. up has not anything to do with latitude.”
If it’s related to Latitude, then a curve (preferably cylindrical in nature (circle, ellipse, parabola, etc., will be a better fit that any straight line. If it’s not related to Latitude why is it such a good(ish) fit? Better than your straight line in fact.
“You just need to have a look at the graph above to see that this is unequivocally valid for the comparison between Tmedian and Taverage, isnt it?”
But why is that? You singularly do not seek to explain.
“And as you in between carefully avoided to even mention Tmedian, which was your hobby horse just a few weeks ago, how will you manage to contradict my evaluation?”
Tmedian is a different calculation. And you base you claims on your inaccurate daily calculations, which you will never admit to.
All stats books observe that Tmedian is a better approximator for Taverage if the actual distribution and data is unknown in advance. In fact, if you have enough data for Tmedian as in this case, then Taverage is a better choice all round.
“Our average minus mean difference? Really?”
The 2 are obviously not related to temperature are they not? You are verging on the idiotic with that observation.
Straight line
https://imgur.com/b8xkhqr
2nd degree polynomial
https://imgur.com/G1VPmMS
2
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tH8fRPP7ZrSjeMX4vgJ1KJMyPyVOUcX2/view
3
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pAH05_rcUotoGzOkcBnsezOOF7-_U1Wp/view
4
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sy1V9laZyPb-PsQ1nDziQOTjegdQ–Xh/view
So you recon that using 3rd (or higher) is better that 2nd. You can’t even get the basic figures correct but are still using your own Daily calculations by the look of it even though USCRN themselves have pointed out that it will lead to errors.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/latitude.jpg
is the correct distribution.
Care to add the r^2 values to your plots so that we can see the ‘improvements’
Straight line, r^2 = 0.1967
2nd order polynomial, r^2 = 0.2608
3rd order polynomial, r^2 = 0.2685
4th order polynomial, r^2 = 0.2729
5th order polynomial, r^2 = 0.2743
RLH
Thanks for your R^2 teaching: I have it on every graph in the spreadsheet calculator together with the function.
*
I was sure you wouldn’t understand what I mean: namely that polynomial means are fits within sets of points, whose increasing order clearly contradict your subjective impression that a second order poly can be an alternative to a cosine weighting simulating Earth’s spherical shape.
*
A last trial.
1. Distribution of avg-mean vs. avg-median in USCRN, without / with latitude weighting
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FJ9GUEuvlCvbmGAgXVE3NzjwPMWa9ZiS/view
It should be evident to anybody that the quadratic fits represented by the polynomial mean plots have NOTHING to do with latitude.
They have, like linear trends which after all are nothing else that first order polynomial means, only to do with the distribution of sets of points on the X,Y plane.
*
2. USCRN station data in GHCN daily: anomalies without / with latitude weighting
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BmoPRjqCFjw9g3XTB7O3Dw4K4Kz9jCKO/view
The same is valid here: the poly plots themselves have not anything to do with latitude weighting.
*
I anticipate your reaction. You certainly will invent something helping you in keeping right in any case, against all odds.
You literally urge in dominating discussions, to such an extent that you are even ready to silently leave competitions you yourself initiated, when you begin to see that you become the loser.
This is visible: suddenly, the difference between averages and medians in USCRN hourla data has disappeared from any of your comments and graphs.
*
From now on, I won’t reply to your comments anymore: it is simply useless, really waste of time.
Let me finally say that in comparison with an experienced and knowledgeable person like Mark B, you are a zero dot zero, RLH.
Get over it!
Bindion is SO accurate that he includes ALL stations, active, closed, test and experimental in his figures.
I don’t.
“You literally urge in dominating discussions, to such an extent that you are even ready to silently leave competitions you yourself initiated, when you begin to see that you become the loser.”
It is not ‘being a loser’ (except in your mind) when you can correctly observe that if you have enough data to create a Tmedian then you also have enough data to do an accurate Taverage instead.
“I was sure you wouldnt understand what I mean: namely that polynomial means are fits within sets of points, whose increasing order clearly contradict your subjective impression that a second order poly can be an alternative to a cosine weighting simulating Earths spherical shape.”
I did not say it was a replacement for cosine weighting. You did. Straw man.
I observed that Latitude was a reasonably good fit. Its fit improved quite considerably with a 2nd order poly but did not improve much beyond that.
I also observed that a 2nd order poly had a closer approximation to a Latitude calculation than ever a straight line did (especially over a small range such as we have here).
Still no explanations of what actually causes the difference of Taverage and Tmean over the USCRN stations.
Bindidon makes false accusations about me for no reason.
That’s good. That means I live in his head rent-free….
It’s amazing to see how many people invoke the Sun Spot Number when our Sun is at the bottom of a cycle.
It’s the same data they endlessly discredit all the time when our same Sun is on top of a cycle.
These Pseudoskeptics are strange people…
And that is the reason why, following a good advice from WUWT guest editor Javier, I prefer to concentrate on the solar flux indicator named F10.7cm:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QDIH1i34iyU4cQgkhwoUDYTYAA2Qx-7v/view
Strrrange! Each time I extend the data, the quadratic fit of SC25 increases, and that of SC24 keeps as before.
If OLS straight lines are ‘your measure’ why are you not using that?
What about you finally stopping your brazen, ridiculous polemic?
Did you forget your stupid comment about latitudes versus quadratic means?
‘I learned statistics’.
Hmmmmh.
You obviously never learned accuracy.
Or improving r^2. Mind you , I suppose you could claim the it was overfitting instead. Good luck with that.
“Did you forget your stupid comment about latitudes versus quadratic means?”
I suspect straight lines are the first step towards simpletons explanation of everything. Regardless if that is actually based on linear or circular dimensions.
How about the warming is inexplicable? It’s within the realm of historical natural variability, nothing unordinary. The only thing constant about nature is its inconstancy.
There are several flaws in the AGW nonsense that really bother the cult.
One is the “33K” figure from their made-up physics, that comes from comparing Earth’s average temperature to an imaginary object.
Another is that their bogus “energy imbalance” is trying balance flux, which doesn’t balance.
Another is the fact that they must believe the Greenland ice sheet is warming the planet, because they believe it is emitting over 460 TW!
The list goes on and on.
And, speaking of the Greenland ice sheet, the temperature got slightly above freezing one day last month. This morning, it is -40C, which is also -40F.
https://postimg.cc/mtJWZMZn
The cult wants us to believe the ice sheet is warming the planet!
The imaginary object compared is itself imaginary existing only in Clint R’s cult-like comments. Clint R also can’t even add areas appropriately when discussing the Greenland ice sheet radiative emission. Fun to laughingly read cult-like comments from Clint R.
pups, Your graph is for the Summit Station on Greenland. It’s at 3210 m (10,530 ft) above mean sea level. I would think that the cold temperatures are not particularly unusual, but this summer may be an exception.
Yes Swanson that’s the “ice sheet”.
At least you’re on the right island. Not bad for a janitor….
The animations in the following link:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball
Make it clear that in “orbital motion without axial rotation” the same side of the object always faces towards the inside of the orbit rather than towards a distant star.
The cannonball is not rotating on its own axis. It is fired without spin, so it orbits without spin…the “bottom” of the cannonball always facing towards the Earth whilst it completes the orbit. The same side of the cannonball is not always facing towards some fixed star whilst it orbits. In order for that to happen, the cannonball would have to start rotating on its own axis.
Think of a person walking around an imaginary track that goes all the way around the equator. From the same viewpoint as shown in the linked animations, the person would be “upright” when at the “top” of the Earth (nearest the top of the screen) and “upside down” when half way around their journey, at the “bottom” of the Earth (nearest the bottom of the screen). In reality, of course, they are always the right way up when walking, it is just that the Earth is round, and gravity keeps their feet on the ground.
Now think of an aircraft circumnavigating the Earth, following the same track around the equator. That too would be “upright” when at the “top”, and “upside down” halfway around the journey, when at the “bottom”…but the aircraft is not “rotating on its own axis”. It is only “orbiting”.
Same with the cannonball. The animations show the two vectors involved in orbital motion, and how they interact in order to keep the “bottom” of the cannonball oriented towards the Earth at all times.
DISCLAIMER: I am already aware, and fully accept, that the orientation of the cannonball is not marked out in the animations in any way. Picture the person, and the circumnavigating aircraft, as you look at them, and the point I am making will be clearer.
pups never learns. Your cannonball doesn’t rotate wrt the stars as it exits the cannon and there are no torques on it as it flies, thus it appears to be rotating CCW WRT the Earth as it’s path follows a trajectory or sub-orbit around the Earth. An aircraft, however, must remain within the atmosphere and follow the curvature of the Earth, thus rotates once wrt the stars as it circumnavigates the planet.
Wrong, Swanson. The cannonball, person walking, and aircraft all remain oriented with their “underside” facing towards the Earth, because there are no torques acting on them to rotate them about their own axes.
That is “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
Wait, Kiddo. Are you suggesting that cannonballs orbit?
Then you might like:
https://www.eg.bucknell.edu/physics/astronomy/astr101/specials/newtscannon.html
By Newton’s standard, you still have 17 years of trolling!
Yes, I liked the link, thanks. Easy to follow, and does not contradict what I am saying.
Then you might have missed this bit, Kiddo:
You never really talk of velocity, acceleration, gravity, and inertia but still pretend to do kinematics, btw. Looks odd to me.
No, I missed nothing. No contradiction.
To make DREMT’s point even more clear DREMT has now agreed in writing with:
A certain cannonball & airplane with their “underside” facing towards the Earth during the orbit (lap, rev.), our moon and “a persons orientation will change through 360 degrees per lap.”
“The cannonball, person walking, and aircraft all remain oriented with their “underside” facing towards the Earth”
No they don’t without some force acting to make them so.
What force do you believe acts on the person walking, other than gravity?
Gravity opposed by muscles that keep the COG over the upwards/downwards force point.
No such opposing force acts on the Moon (or anything in orbit/freefall).
RLH, DREMT has never realized a person walking in a circle exerts a torque reacted by the ground to remain facing the center of the circle. DREMT is obviously not schooled in statics/dynamics.
We are talking about a person walking along a track that runs around the equator, Ball4.
It is the same type of torque applied to the track, different magnitude.
So is it your assertion that without exerting this torque, reacted by the ground, that the person would be walking backwards, on their hands, upside down by the time they were halfway around their journey?
No, that’s a DREMT assertion. The person would no longer be walking at all in that case.
Ball4 misses the point.
DREMT misses the point about balance.
You do not have a point.
That you are unbalanced. Sure I do.
OK, RLH.
DREMT lives in a universe without science as the rest of us know it.
OK, RLH, if you say so.
“Same with the cannonball. The animations show the two vectors involved in orbital motion, and how they interact in order to keep the ‘bottom’ of the cannonball oriented towards the Earth at all times.”
They show no such thing.
The show linear momentum, and force.
The force changes the direction of the translational motion, the linear momentum.
It does nothing to orientation of the spherical ball.
Only torque can do that, and there is none.
Agreed.
“spinthe ‘bottom’ of the cannonball always facing towards the Earth whilst it completes the orbit.”
Not only are you a liar but also seeing things that aren’t there.
Acid trip gone bad?
As explained ad nauseum. Newton found no such thing.
This pure fantasy.
Please make doubly sure to read the disclaimer at the end before responding.
“The animations in
Make it clear that in ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ the same side of the object always faces towards the inside of the orbit”
DREMT: ‘oh BTW I’m lying now.’
“I am already aware, and fully accept, that the orientation of the cannonball is not marked out in the animations in any way.”
See?
Be sure to read the whole thing, rather than just the beginning and end, as well.
So You don’t mean “The animations in Make it clear”
You mean the animations ‘make it clear if you are also on acid seeing things that arent clear at all.”
And those who can’t understand the physics of the actual problem, like Clint and you, go with the the Faulty Analogy Fallacy.
You guys are perpetually stuck in terrestrial transport memes that have nothing in common with orbiting in a vacuum.
Are you really resuming that utter nonsense again and again?
And I had hoped this new thread finally would be kept free of it :- (
Why don’t you continue this chewed-through discussion in the previous thread?
You keep mentioning the moon in your own comments, Bindidon.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-838951
Binbidon, Ball4, Nate, Norman, Swanson, and the twin trolls, remain confused about Moon because they still don’t understand orbital motion. The vector analysis is too advanced for them. They can’t even understand the ball-on-a-string. They can’t understand, and they can’t learn.
Whereas Clint R can’t understand simple orbital mechanics which don’t provide anything about rotations about an its own axis for a body in an orbit.
“Orbital motion without axial rotation” is like the ball-on-a-string. It’s also the motion of Moon. Idiots cannot understand simple analogies.
Thanks for confirming such.
A ball-on-a-string does not apply to orbits and orbital mechanics.
“They can’t understand, and they can’t learn“
Learning seems to be a particularly painful process for them.
I’m puzzled by Tony Heller. On one hand, he’s exposing the conspiracy to adjust the temperature and other series in order to give more weight to the alarmist narrative, but on the other he seems unable to see the much more obvious and well-researched conspiracy of nasa never having landed a man on the moon, and in fact he uses the ‘going to the moon’ as a part of his from authority argument, pointing that the ‘old nasa’ was not alarmist at all and yet they went to the moon. But they didn’t! I mean, it is pretty clear to me that nasa being a conspiratorial actor agency they used to be during the 60s and the 70s would have no problems getting back to its old ways of faking the data, but how come tony is unable to see it?
Someone looking for attention?
Just a little bit of trolling won’t hurt maybe =)
But it doesn’t mean that I don’t mean that nasa never been to the moon. The evidence is pretty clear here.
Apparently being smart and being extremely gullible are not mutually exclusive.
Absolutely true… otherwise, why would so many apparently smart people all around the earth believe in the lunar hoax?
How do the Soviets fit into this.
Apollo was all about beating Soviets to be first to put humans on the Moon.
Were Soviets unable to notice that a rocket went to the Moon, or did the Soviets just agree they got their asses kicked, when they didn’t, for some reason?
site’s censor is blocking my reply once again (i wonder why? lmao), so i’ll have to use the text reverser again
>>>
Steivos erew ni no ti. Ton morf eht gninnigeb tub yllautneve yeht derugif ti tuo [emos yas, yeht tog rieht sdnah no eht evitinifed foorp fo eht xaoh ta dnuora eht emit fo Ollopa 31 noissim], tub daetsni fo gnilaever yeht detpo rof sffoyap ni dnik, hcus sa tnuocsid edart ni seitidommoc dna emos seigolonhcet taht eht lairatilatot teivos yteicos dluoc ton ecudorp, sa nairatilatot seiteicos evah selbuort gniretac ot namuh sdeen.
Eseht revewoh era rehtar evitatnet seiroeht, sa ekilnu eht elpmis scisyhp, yrotsih dna namuh snoitavitom era ythgim tluciffid ot yduts.
Tub eht gniht si, taht LLA eht nacirema dennam sthgilf ta tsael pu ot dna gnidulcni eht ollopa-zuyos noissim erew ekaf, ylno eht dennamnu snoissim fo eht emit erew laer. Ereht era emos seiroeht gniyas taht eht steivos osla dekaf emos fo rieht ylrae snoissim, tub ereht si ssel evitinifed ecnedive sdrawot taht.
<<<
decode it at http://www.textreverse.com
simplified, soviets were in on it, and it is likely that both nasa and soviets had been faking manned flights for a while, so it was to their mutual benefit. For their silence, soviets received generous payoffs in kind.
Not even in the realistic science fiction category..
The historical aspect of the conspiracy theory is not very relevant; the conclusions are not drawn from it nor is it used to argue for the theory, it is just something that maybe follows from the theory. I mean, the opposite idea that soviets did suspect that the landings were fake is just as compatible with the fake landings as the idea that they were in on it. For you see, unlike with the real science, there is very little real historical knowledge available, and some pieces may be lost forever. Personally I doubt significant part of the known humanity’s history is waht really happened, but until someone invent time masheen (a one-way machine, transmitting info from the past into the future would be sufficient) we will never know for real.
Rovers and tracks have been photographed by later orbiters. I’m sure you’ll say those are fake. too. That’s what flat earthers do.
Unfortunately, photographic evidence proves nothing in the days of the photoshop.
“days of the photoshop” again the assumption on your part is that everyone involved the production of that later orbiter image is corrupt.
And of course everyone involved in the production of all the earlier Apollo photographs was corrupt.
And all involved in the production of rockets and spacecraft, which couldnt actually do the intended job, were corrupt.
And all of the astronauts and handlers were corrupt.
And all of the people involved in the worldwide tracking network, used to track the spacecraft’s trajectory, and receive radio signals, were corrupt.
And all of hundreds of engineers, technicians and reporters, such as Walter Cronkite, who witnessed the astronauts boarding the rockets, witnessed the launch, had free access to NASA during the program development, to interview participants, witnessed the splashdown.
None of them uncovered the true story? They were all either corrupt or very effectively deceived.
And of course through 50 y, none of the thousands of corrupt participants decided to leak the story to reporters?
And this is plausible, to you?
Meanwhile we had the top-secret Pentagon papers about Vietnam leaked. We had Watergate facts leak out.
Meanwhile, today, in eg the White House, it is extremely difficult to keep information from leaking out. Hence all the NYT and WSJ stories based on leaks.
In your view there is no objective truth anymore.
Sad for you.
“Missions to the Moon have been conducted by the following nations and entities (in chronological order): the Soviet Union, the United States, Japan, the European Space Agency, China, India, Luxembourg, and Israel.’
Surely one of these could reveal the ‘truth’ about the fake Moon landings.
willard…here’s 3-valued digital logic for you…
A…..B…..C….A&B&C…..Not A&B&C
0…..0…..0……0………..1
0…..0…..1……0………..1
0…..1…..0……0………..1
0…..1…..1……0………..1
1…..0…..0……0………..1
1…..0…..1……0………..1
1…..1…..0……0………..1
1…..1…..1……1………..0
If you want to invent another system of logic that’s up to you, but it’s not Boolean logic if it has values other than 1 or 0.
I can fit a Not A, or a Not B, or a Not C in any input leg using an inverter.
Oh, Gordo.
Three truth values:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic
You conflate this with propositions, which are usually identified with A, B, P, Q, etc.
“three truth values indicating true, false and some indeterminate third value.”
One of those has determined that the intermediate value is actually Unknown.
This throws Willard into a tizy because he can’t figure out logic that has a 3rd, Unknown, value. Where an Unknown can’t be compared to another Unknown because they are all different Unknowns.
It’s the sort of 3 valued logic that SQL employs and allows for many otherwise impossible logic problems to be solved quite simply. It is also the type of logic that AI (amongst others) prefers as it defines that we don’t know what we don’t know.
> One of those has determined that the intermediate value is actually Unknown.
Our Hall Monitor can’t bring himself to accept that there are other interpretations than “unknown” for that third value.
In fact he can’t even concede having messed up his reading of the & truth table:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-832027
AI has more to do with modal logics than three-valued ones anyway.
Idiot. Now knows better than an AI.
Also knows what we don’t know as well apparently.
To know can be a modal operator, dummy. So the state of something not being known can be represented as “not to know that P,” or more succinctly ~Kp. Start here:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-epistemic/
There are tons of application of modal logics in AI.
Stick to SQL.
willard…”There are tons of application of modal logics in AI.”
***
If you want to mess with AI in your mind you can arrive at many fanciful conclusions. In practice, an AI unit generally uses digital, and perhaps analog logic, to operate. I don’t see the point in using AI in a computer alone unless it’s to model real-world applications. I am open to possibilities beyond my ken, however.
If it had two known values and one unknown, it could not proceed till the unknown was worked out internally or supplied externally by a human. I can see a 3-input AND gate having one input unknown, with the provision that the unknown has to be guessed at and tried until an input supplies the desired result.
I remember studying the solutions to a set of multivariable function in linear algebra. Say the equation is ax + bx + c = 0 and you have several such equations for which you’d like a solution. By analyzing the parameters a,b,c and the number of equations, you can determine if a solution exists.
Hopefully an AI unit would have such an algorithm, to determine if a logic problem with an unknown could be worked out in the first place. The last thing you want is an AI unit going into an endless loop trying to solve a set of equations that has no solution.
My experience has been limited to Boolean logic using 1s and 0s. In electronics, however, you have to consider the available voltages and the device capabilities, and that can lead to states in the devices that are undefined. Not the same as unknown.
willard…”In fact he cant even concede having messed up his reading of the & truth table:
A = true, A & Not A is unknown”
***
That’s not logical. A is known = 1, therefore Not A is known … it’s 0. Therefore A & Not A is known…it’s 0.
> not logical
Exactly, Gordo. I’m not the one who said that. You know how blockquotes work, right?
As for AI, you might like:
https://youtu.be/tF4DML7FIWk
“there are other interpretations than unknown for that third value.”
Other interpretations of the 3rd value don’t invalidate the choice of Unknown for it.
As an AI knows (along with most other ‘sentient beings’) that there are things that they don’t know, this then corresponds to their understanding of the world. There are things that they don’t know, hence Unknown.
Mind you, Willard knows everything so maybe what applies to the rest of us doesn’t apply to him.
> There are things that they don’t know, hence Unknown.
An AI usually does not need to know what nobody knows, dummy. It can work with “agent A* doesn’t know P.” Modal logics are perfect for that. You can add a third value in them if that’s what you want, but most of them work well with two.
And don’t worry, the two frameworks can translate:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11225-012-9420-0
test
ball4…”Temperature is not heat, Gordon”.
***
I have repeated many times that temperature is a measure of the relative levels of heat. You defined heat as a measure of itself, obviously confusing heat with temperature.
Temperature is a measure invented by humans to measure heat levels. Boltzmann et all defined it as the average kinetic energy of a gas. However, heat is that kinetic energy.
I have told you several times that the ‘kinetic’ in kinetic energy is an adjective to describe energy in motion. As such, KE is a descrip.tion of any energy in motion.
If the KE is associated with atoms in motion, as vibrations internal to a mass, that KE rep.resents thermal energy, aka heat. The vibration is actually work but heat and work are equivalent, albeit with different parameters of measure. However, the vibrations require heat in order to vibrate.
In a gas, the atoms of gas create a force on the container walls, and we call that p.ressure. However, we are concerned, especially in a constant volume with a constant number of moles of gas, about what causes an increase in force the atoms exert on the walls. It is heat that causes the gas atoms/molecules to have a greater momentum hence p.resenting a greater force on the container walls.
Temperature is nothing more than a measure of that kinetic energy while heat is that kinetic energy.
PV = nRT
willard…”he [Newton] balances the inertia of the cannonball (which makes it want to continue traveling in a straight line, and therefore away from the Earth) against the acceleration due to the Earths gravity (which pulls the cannonball toward the center of the Earth)”.
***
Inertia is used incorrectly here, it is the resistance to a change in motion to a stationary body. Momentum is the word they are looking for. Mind you, if a body is moving at a constant velocity, and a force is applied in the direction of the motion, there would be inertia to a change in velocity. That applies to a force applied in the opposite direction, aimed at decelerating the body.
A change in momentum requires a change in force over time and is called impulse.
The Moon acts exactly like the cannonball, given that there is no air resistance to slow the cannonball. A cannonball would normally follow a parabolic trajectory due to air resistance, which decelerates it per second squared, giving the parabolic relationship, y = x^2.
It is unlikely that a cannonball can be launched without rotation since it experiences forces from the cannon muzzle as it travels the length of the muzzle. If it could be launched without rotation and had an ‘X’ on the side facing the Earth, it would continue to orbit the Earth, as claimed by Newton, with the ‘X’ always facing the Earth.
In that sense, the cannonball would act exactly like an airliner orbiting the Earth, or the Moon. None of the three would rotate about their COG since they are translating without rotation. A cannonball orbiting the Earth under the influence of gravity, as described by Newton, would be no different than the cannonball moving in a straight line, both motions representing translation.
At each instant, the cannonball is trying to move in a straight line, along a tangent line. At each instant, gravity acts to bend that tangent line slightly and eventually into an orbital path.
“At each instant, the cannonball is trying to move in a straight line, along a tangent line. At each instant, gravity acts to bend that tangent line slightly and eventually into an orbital path.”
Describes an orbit, not an orientation which is a separate motion.
Interesting example of an unnatural obsession. Treatment unknown.
Maybe nurse ratchet has a suggestion?
“Describes an orbit, not an orientation which is a separate motion.”
Arguing with yourself again, RLH? You have already agreed that you think “orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion like the “moon on the right”, where one face remains oriented towards a distant fixed star. So you do not separate orbit from orientation.
“So you do not separate orbit from orientation.”
As the orientation is towards a fixed star whereas the orbit is around the Earth they are definitely 2 separate things.
“Spinners”: “orbital motion without axial rotation” is where one face of the body remains oriented towards a distant star.
“Non-Spinners”: “orbital motion without axial rotation” is where one face of the body remains oriented towards the inside of the orbit.
Both sides have an orientation of the body in mind when thinking about orbital motion. So orientation and orbit are not separate in that sense.
Those who propose the one side of the Moon would face the Earth whilst orbiting it, fail to produce any force that would make it do so. Just orbiting is not enough.
No torque about the object’s own internal axis required. It’s just the way an object that is “orbiting without axial rotation” remains oriented.
rlh…”Those who propose the one side of the Moon would face the Earth whilst orbiting it, fail to produce any force that would make it do so”.
***
The force is gravity. that’s the only force required. Without gravity, the Moon would shoot off on a straight line path.
It’s the same with an airliner flying with constant velocity at 35,000 feet. Picture the airliner flying over an infinitely long horizontal surface, under the influence of a gravitational field. The motors drive it at constant velocity, a velocity that will produce enough lift on the wings against air to balance its lift against gravity at a constant altitude.
Now start to bend the horizontal surface into a curve. The airliner will automatically follow the bend since it is in a state of equilibrium with the gravitational field. Under the right amount of momentum and altitude, you can bend the surface into a circle and the airliner will continue to follow that curved surface at a constant altitude, as long as the equilibrium state is maintained.
Remarkable, but true.
Gordon does admit that a circumnavigating airplane and “a persons orientation will change through 360 degrees per lap.”
“Non-Spinners” are always forced to leave out 1 spin: “orbital motion without axial rotation” more or less than once per orbit is where one face of the body remains oriented towards the inside of the orbit as DREMT admits the orientation changes once (spins one 360) per orbit.
Shown by DREMT’s recent agreement: a circumnavigating airplane, our moon, and “a persons orientation will change through 360 degrees per lap.”
“The force is gravity. thats the only force required.”
The force of gravity (which can be considered to act on a single point at the center of a mass) provides the requirements for an orbit of one body with another. It does not provide the force required to force an orientation during that orbit on any spherical body doing that orbit.
For an object that is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about an internal axis (motion like the “moon on the left” in the below GIF), where do you think that the torque needs to be applied to make the object move that way? About the external axis, or about the internal axis?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
“No torque about the objects own internal axis required. Its just the way an object that is orbiting without axial rotation remains oriented.”
No need for science to worry its pretty little head about the CAUSE of it. It just IS.
Hilarious.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-842059
DREMT is still wrong.
How so?
rlh…”As the orientation is towards a fixed star whereas the orbit is around the Earth they are definitely 2 separate things.”
***
The orientation of a tangent line to the near face is not toward a fixed star. It is re-orientated through 360 degrees per orbit therefore it points toward many stars instantaneously through it orbit.
The same thing applies to a tangent line representing the nose-tail axis of an airliner flying at 35,000 feet. It is re-oriented every instant until it has completed a 360 degree re-orientation over the orbital path.
You can see that easily without the airliner or the Moon. Just draw a circle with a radial line. Afix a tangent line where the radial line meets the circumference and allow the radial line to rotate about the centre of the circle. The tangent line re-orients point by point on the circle circumference.
The nose of the tangent line is not rotating about a point between the nose and the tangent line tail because it is attached to the radial line, and must always remain perpendicular to the radial line on a circle or any other continuous curve. Both are rotating about the circle centre, however.
That’s for a circle defined with a radial line and a tangent line affixed to the radial line. The lunar orbit is different in that the Moon is affixed to nothing. However, the Moon is constantly moving in a linear direction (tangentially to the orbit) while gravity re-orients its tangential path into an elliptical orbit.
“The orientation of a tangent line to the near face is not toward a fixed star. It is re-orientated through 360 degrees per orbit therefore it points toward many stars instantaneously through it orbit.”
Newton requires that any change in orientation requires a force to create that change.
What force operates on a spherical body during an orbit which causes such?
For an object that is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about an internal axis (motion like the “moon on the left” in the below GIF), where do you think that the torque needs to be applied to make the object move that way? About the external axis, or about the internal axis?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Orbit and rotation are 2 separate things. Each requires an independent force to operate independently to achieve the independent motions.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-842059
DREMT is still wrong.
How so?
A torque will change the speed of rotation, if an object is already rotating, it does not require a torque to keep it rotating.
Says Newton.
Right. So, again, I ask…where am I wrong in what I said?
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
It’s up to you to say how the vast majority of Earth-Moon models are wrong.
Besides, when was the last time Flop referred to torque?
…and answer came there none.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
The answer has been told many times now.
Witness the first time I bit your trolling:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/03/uah-global-temperature-update-for-february-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-648962
All these months and you still have learned nothing.
Please stop trolling.
Willard, please stop trolling.
”
Both sides have an orientation of the body in mind when thinking about orbital motion”
Nope. One side understands the requirements of Newtons First Law:
“it would continue to point in the direction it was pointing in.”
The other side claims it will CHANGE the direction it is pointing. Without any CAUSE, violating Newtons First Law.
“it would continue to orbit the Earth, as claimed by Newton, with the X always facing the Earth.”
Newton never claimed any such thing about it facing the Earth.
Why do you guys keep making up BS that did not say?
nate…”it would continue to orbit the Earth, as claimed by Newton, with the X always facing the Earth.
Newton never claimed any such thing about it facing the Earth.”
***
Nice red-herring, Nate. I did not claim Newton made that statement, I implied, IF Newton’s cannonball emerged from a cannot barrel with an ‘X’ marked on the bottom of a non-rotating ball, then….
…it would continue to point in the direction it was pointing in. Regardless of the position of the Earth.
No, “…it would continue to orbit the Earth…with the ‘X’ always facing the Earth”
Do you understand that to make such a claim you need to back it with SOMETHING? Evidence is usually required.
Thus far it is just declared that it happens that way.
That ain’t science. Its Astrology. Its Flat Earth. Its religion.
Its bullshit.
Whereas this
“2021 at 3:54 AM
it would continue to point in the direction it was pointing in.”
HAS a reason.
Newtons First Law for Rotation.
So we’ll need to add Newton to the list of people who have gotten it wrong.
According to the TEAM.
RLH, for an object that is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about an internal axis (motion like the “moon on the left” in the below GIF), where do you think that the torque needs to be applied to make the object move that way? About the external axis, or about the internal axis?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
An unattached rigid body, like the cannonball, is what Newtons law for rotation applies to.
If the body is not rotating at the start, it cannot start rotating without having a torque applied to IT.
Basic rigid body dynamics.
“for an object that is rotating about an external axis”
i.e. is in an orbit.
“where do you think that the torque needs to be applied to make the object move that way”
Gravity will make things orbit one another. Won’t make spherical things point one face to another though.
“No, ‘it would continue to orbit the Earthwith the X always facing the Earth'”
Why?
The Earth just happened to be in the direction the X was facing when fired, why would its position later cause any such rotation of the cannonball?
OK, RLH…as you refuse to answer my question, I will answer for you. The correct answer is, “the torque only needs to be applied about the external axis in order for the object to move as per the “moon on the left”, since it is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about an internal axis”.
So, what generates the torque about the external axis? It is a combination of the force of gravity acting at right angles to the object’s linear momentum.
The observation was that the Earth just happened to be ‘below’ the cannonball when it was fired. Why would its position later in the ‘orbit’ effect the cannonball’s orientation?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-842059
DREMT is still wrong.
“only needs to be applied about the external axis in order for the object to move as per the ‘moon on the left’, since it is rotating about an external axis, and not ro”
If the cannonball were attached rigidly to the axis at Earths center, then yes this argument could make sense. But it is not.
This is a subtlety that is missed when one doesn’t have sufficient training or expertise in physics.
Does the TEAM have formal training in physics? Its pretty obvious they do not.
Thus they continue to make mistakes.
“DREMT is still wrong.”
How so?
The Cannonball is the rigid body being discussed here. The Earth is not attached to it.
Rigid Body dynamics. Check Brown or Madhavi.
You will clearly see that a force applied through the COM of a rigid body can only make it Translate, not Rotate.
To give a rigid body rotation it must have a torque applied to it.
The cannonball after being fired has translational momentum, no rotation. And no torque is applied to thereafter.
Now matter how much you want it to, it will not begin to rotate on any axis without torque applied to IT.
…and answer came there none.
“So, what generates the torque about the external axis? It is a combination of the force of gravity acting at right angles to the object’s linear momentum.”
Torque is r x F, not v x F or p x F.
“r” is a position vector pointing from the earth out toward the moon.
“F” is a force vector pointing from the moon back toward the earth, ie 180 degrees from the direction of “r”.
|r x F| = rF sin(180) = 0.
There is no torque.
Like this, Tim:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torque#/media/File%3ATorque_animation.gif
Where F is the force from the cannon. Yes, I know gravity is not a rigid rod, but it still connects the cannonball to the center of the Earth.
Some of us have a life more than on here.
DREMT is wrong because a ball-on-a-string has nothing to do with orbits or orbital mechanics.
Connects the center of the cannonball to the center of the Earth.
Yes, the center of the cannonball is connected to the center of the Earth…but since a torque is only required about the external axis, and not the internal axis, the fact that gravity only acts through the center of the cannonball is irrelevant. The cannonball rotates about an external axis and not an internal axis, and that is motion in which the same side of the cannonball remains oriented towards the Earth throughout.
> Some of us have a life more than on here.
If only. That was your 461th comment in this thread. You now have 462. Out of 1,634. That’s more than 25%.
“Like this, Tim:”
The irony …
The force, F, in your link is forward/backward (or clockwise/counterclockwise). This force is perpendicular to r, and does cause a torque about the given axis.
The force of gravity is inward. It does not cause a torque.
Thanks for providing a link that so clearly shows you are wrong.
The force F, in the link, corresponds to the force from the cannon, Tim, as I said. Gravity represents the rod, the link between the ball and the center. The force from the cannon is perpendicular to gravity, and thus the two combined provide the torque about the external axis.
” Gravity represents the rod,”
So you admit that a rigid rod-like attachment is required for the cannon’s sideways force to have the desired effect of a torque on the cannonball?
Progress.
But ‘represents’?
Seriously? You think a rod being ‘represented’, whatever that means, is just as good as a rod?
Thanks for playing but No, that is pure fantasy. No surprise.
Gravity does not provide any rigid attachment.
How does actual rigidity from an actual help? Again, a force thru the COM of a rigid body applies no torque.
With a rigid attachment of the cannonball to another body the COM is MOVED.
Now the Force of the cannon is no longer applied thru the COM. It can apply torque in that case.
Think of a dumbbell made up of two cannonballs connected by a rod. Apply a force thru one of the balls, is off-center. It will rotate.
Apply a force to a single unattached ball, no torque, no rotation.
Arrgh
‘How does actual rigidity from an actual attached rod help?’
The funny thing is that I have made this exact same argument before, using the exact same gif and explanation, and Tim was present at the time. So is Tim’s “confusion” over the argument this time all fake!? Who knows. What I do expect (from the previous discussion) is for him to get bogged down in “gravity is not a rigid rod” and maybe go on about how a frictionless connection between the rod and the ball would better represent the situation.
Both of which would be missing the point. If “revolution” really is “rotation about an external axis”, as it is defined to be, then there is no rotation about an internal axis required for the object to move like the “moon on the left”, with one face always oriented towards the inside of the orbit. So with the “frictionless connection” you would not have a representation of “rotation about an external axis”.
As to the “rigid rod”, no gravity is not a rigid rod, nor does there need to be a rigid connection between the cannonball and the center of the Earth for this to work. What you have are two forces acting perpendicularly to each other which “twist” the ball around the Earth. Hard to explain, but the “Newton’s Cannonball” animations help illustrate it.
“The force F, in the link, corresponds to the force from the cannon, Tim, as I said. Gravity represents the rod,”
Still wrong. The rod causes no torque on the ball. So anything that ‘represents the rod’ also causes no torque on the ball.
The rod only causes an inward force. Forces parallel to “r” cause no torque.
The force from the cannon does cause a torque about the given axis but that is true independent of the presence of the rod. The torque on the ball only depends on the perpendicular distance, but not on the physical presence of the rod (or the presence of gravity). r x F is the same whether the rod is there or not!
And once the ‘cannonball’ leaves the ‘cannon’ it moves with constant angular momentum, whether the rod is there or not.
“Yes, the center of the cannonball is connected to the center of the Earth”
When one can twist the meanings of words like ‘connect’ and ‘represent’ to mean almost anything, then, really there is no objective truth anymore.
“As to the ‘rigid rod’, no gravity is not a rigid rod”
Hooray!
“nor does there need to be a rigid connection between the cannonball and the center of the Earth for this to work.”
Whoops, backsliding to DECLARED ‘truth’ with no logical or scientific support..
“What you have are two forces acting perpendicularly to each other which ‘twist’ the ball around the Earth. Hard to explain”
Yes, when the real physics of torque and rotation is way over your head, and must ‘represented’ with handwaving gibberish, it does get hard to explain…
And it becomes obvious to all that DREMT is simply making it up as he goes along.
He is slinging BS hoping some of it will stick.
“The force from the cannon does cause a torque about the given axis but that is true independent of the presence of the rod.”
To clarify that, TIM, there is no Torque applied ON the cannonball, and independent rigid body. And thus it does not respond by rotating. Yes?
The cannonball gets momentum and ORBITAL angular momentum, with no rotation.
But this is beyond DREMTs comprehension, and he get it all confused.
“Still wrong. The rod causes no torque on the ball”
“The force from the cannon does cause a torque about the given axis but that is true independent of the presence of the rod.”
Kind of hard for me to be wrong when you are agreeing with me, huh, Tim? If the force from the cannon causes a torque about the given axis (which is the external axis and not the internal axis) then we have rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis, and the ball moves as per the “moon on the left”. Tim gets it.
As fully expected,
this is way beyond DREMTs comprehension, and he will get it all confused, and spin it (ha!), twist it into doing something it cannot do, which is give the cannonball ROTATION.
Rotation means specifically changing orientation wrt the stars.
If I apply a Force to the COM of ANY Rigid body, it will not experience a torque and NOT start to ROTATE.
It will accelerate and attain Translational momentum.
Any mass with translational momentum will ALSO have angular momentum about any arbitrary point external to the mass. But this does not translate (Ha!) into ROTATION wrt to the stars.
It can result in the mass ORBITING a planet as in this case with the cannonball orbiting the Earth, but with fixed orientation.
Of course this confuses DREMT to no end.
“then we have rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis, and the ball moves as per the ‘moon on the left’. Tim gets it.”
He gets it, but not the way you do.
Both the so-called ‘Moon on the left’ and the ‘Moon on the right’ have orbital angular momentum.
That orbital angular momentum could have come from being fired from a cannon like our cannonball.
But only the ‘Moon on the left’ has rotation wrt the stars, which it would not have gotten from being fired from a cannon.
Our cannonball will move like the ‘Moon on the right’ with no rotation.
DREMT “So, what generates the torque about the external axis? It is a combination of the force of gravity acting at right angles to the object’s linear momentum.”
This is still wrong. The torque is generated entirely by the force of the cannon forward on the cannonball (in your example). Take that force times the DISTANCE from the cannon to the center of the earth.
torque = r x F
The entire torque is ‘generated’ as the cannon ball accelerates down the barrel of your cannon. Once the force from the cannon ceases, the torque ceases.
Neither “the force of gravity” nor “the object’s linear momentum” generate torque.
* Not before firing
* Not while accelerating dow nthe barrel
* Not after the cannon ball leaves the barrel.
Until you recognize this fundamental error, there is no point moving forward.
OK, I should not have said the “linear momentum” generates torque. That was indeed a mistake. The force from the cannon generates the torque…about the external axis, and not the internal axis. Meaning the ball rotates about an external axis, and not an internal axis, which is motion like the “moon on the left”.
You are moving in the right direction, DREMT.
“Meaning the ball rotates about an external axis … “
No. It specifically means the COM *moves* along some conic section. It could be fired with just the right speed to move in a perfect circle (which might be called “rotating”), but the issue of orientation still needs to be addressed.
There is still no torque to rotate the artillery shell (easier to picture than a “ball”). If the nose of the artillery shell was facing Polaris before firing, and the nose was facing polaris all the way down the barrel, then the nose will continue to face Polaris after it comes out.
(In the atmosphere, aerodynamic forces can create torques that continuously reorient a shell (or a jet) to keep the nose facing the direction of travel. But there is no atmosphere near the moon to do this.)
“The force from the cannon does cause a torque about the given axis…”
Those were your words. The given axis was the one external to the ball, Tim. You can’t take it back now! If there is a torque, there is rotation…
The Moon on the right has translational momentum and is not rotating wrt the stars. Yet it has orbital angular momentum, mvr, around the orbit center but no spin angular momentum.
When the cannonball is fired from the cannon it has exactly these identical properties. It has translational momentum and it is not rotating wrt the stars. It thus has orbital angular momentum, mvr, around the Earth center but no spin angular momentum.
Its orbital angular momentum was produced by the torque of the cannon “Take that force times the DISTANCE from the cannon to the center of the earth.”, and thus satisfies Newton’s laws.
Since the motion of the cannonball upon its firing is identical to the ‘Moon on the right’ there SHOULD BE NO DOUBT that the fired cannonball moves like the Moon on the right, and does not rotate as it orbits.
“If there is a torque, there is rotation”
Not so fast! The torque was applied DURING THE ACCELERATION within the barrel. During that time there was no torque causing a change in orientation. This torque only caused “orbital angular momentum”, not “spin angular momentum”. If the nose was steadily facing polaris, it will continue to steadily face polaris.
There is no new torque once it leaves the cannon. there is nothing to re-orient the object. it keeps facing the same way!
Just like if I carry an object on a fritionless pole that has its nose pointed to the north, the nose will continue to point north, even if I start to turn to the left.
The force from the cannon imparts a torque about the external axis, therefore the ball rotates about the external axis. There is nothing to impart a torque about the ball’s own axis, therefore the ball does not rotate about its own axis. Overall then, it rotates about an external axis, and not about an internal axis. Motion like the “moon on the left”.
“The force from the cannon imparts a torque about the external axis”
yes.
“therefore the ball rotates about the external axis.”
Nope! Torques don’t always cause rotations. If I accelerate straight down a road, there is a torque about any light pole along the side of the road. If the force on my car is 1000 N and the pole is 5 m to the side of my car’s path, there is a torque of 5000 m*N about the axis defined by that pole. My car does not “rotate” about the light pole.
I realize you don’t ‘get it’. At some point you need to grab an advanced undergraduate mechanics text and actually work through the problems in the chapters on torques and elliptical orbits. Or admit that maybe, just maybe, 10’s of 1000’s of scientists might actually know this stuff better than you.
But there is no teaching you if you are cannot admit the possibility that you are not the smartest and most knowledgeable physicist in the world.
I’m sorry that I think differently to you, Tim. At this stage I don’t know what else to say to people. I seem to get so much abuse and/or condescension merely for holding a different view. Oh well. Not complaining, just acknowledging the bizarre nature of this blog. I have every right to think differently, and will continue to do so.
We have MOR or MOL. Which one is it?
‘Since the motion of the cannonball upon its firing is identical to the Moon on the right there SHOULD BE NO DOUBT that the fired cannonball moves like the Moon on the right.’
Cannonball upon firing moves identically in every way to MOR.
Yet you conclude that it moves like MOL, bizarrely contrary to straightforward logic and what eyes can see.
It is also contrary to the known physics, which has been explained to you countless times.
Having defied logic, facts and reality, you will return and shamelessly bait people with a declaration that all is settled, and again claim a false victory.
This is your pattern, and it goes way beyond “merely holding a different view.”
“Im sorry that I think differently to you, Tim. “
You miss the point. It’s not that you ‘think differently than me’, it’s that you ‘think differently than the universe’.
When you dive into the details, your ‘model’ fails on many levels. Thousands of people have dived into the details — across the centuries and around the globe. All eventually come to the conclusion that orbital motion is the motion of the COM — a point. The orientation is a separate issue. That is how to keep everything consistent with Newton’s Laws, with conservation of energy, with conservation of angular momentum.
I have every right to think differently, and will continue to do so.
Kiddo’s turning into the Dude:
[TIM] Look, Kiddo – when you dive into the details, your “model” fails on many levels. Thousands of people have dived into the details across the centuries and around the globe. All eventually come to the conclusion that orbital motion is the motion of the COM a point.
[KIDDO] Yea, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.
“Orbital motion without axial rotation” is not motion like the “moon on the right”. I don’t care how many people may or may not think that it is. I have every right to think differently, and will continue to do so.
DREMT:
Physics supports my position. Its physics. Its torque. Its physics. Its angular momentum. Its physics telling us what the motion is..
Its…er…uh..ohh…it doesn’t agree?
Well *&*%, who cares.
I think differently to you.
I have every right to think differently, and will continue to do so.
DREMT has every right to think differently but no right to intentionally mislead the innocent.
More astute commenters here have the duty to point out when DREMT’s basic physics are misleading and/or wrong.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
I never started! DREMT, please stop abusing basic physics and kinematics.
#2
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Continuing on with USCRN Latitude, Taverage-Tmean, distributions.
The below are the quarterly figures to fill out the yearly chart I gave earlier (with all USCRN ACET stations).
Spring
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/latitude-spring.jpg
Summer
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/latitude-summer.jpg
Fall
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/latitude-fall.jpg
Winter
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/latitude-winter.jpg
ACET means Active, Closed, Experimental and Test if you can’t figure that out.
I’m sure Bindidon will alone soon to explain that a straight line will be much better as demonstrating this quarterly effect.
“NOAA data shows that Summer 2021 in the continental U.S. edged out the Dust Bowl Summer of 1936 for hottest ever recorded.”
Strange how neither GISS not any of the satellite records show this.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2016/plot/rss/from:2016/plot/uah6/from:2016
Here’s the trend for the last few years.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2016/trend/plot/rss/from:2016/trend/plot/uah6/from:2016/trend
RLH – did you note that the quote referred to “the continental U.S.” ?
Why be disingenuous?
Now we are using a small percentage of the globe to make points are we?
Strange how USCRN, which covers just that area, didn’t notice the same isn’t it?
Does GISS have August yet?
Nate
Simply look at
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v4/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Sorry, that’s global of course.
I don’t know if GISS publishes CONUS data like NOAA does.
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2020
Nate: You expect GISS to be THAT hot in August?
Not yet.
The official date for the release of GISS monthly data is the third Thursday of the following month, though it occasionally comes out earlier that week.
studentb…”NOAA data shows that Summer 2021 in the continental U.S. edged out the Dust Bowl Summer of 1936 for hottest ever recorded.”
***
Is that your analysis or an analysis offered by NOAA? If the latter, why do you continue to spread propaganda based on fudged data? Both NOAA and GISS have been trying to downgrade the 1930s warming for a long time. GISS was caught in the act by Steve McIntyre of climateaudit as they quietly tried to replace 1934 with 1998 as the warmest year in CONUS history.
NOAA and GISS both declared 2014 the warmest year ever, at the time. They had already declared 2006 the warmest year ever even though the UAH record shows neither being anywhere near to a record.
Of course, they did it by fiddling statistics. NOAA declared 2014 the warmest year ever based on a 0.48 probability whereas GISS, not to be outdone, used a 0.38 probaility factor.
https://climateaudit.org/2007/02/15/ushcn-versions/
https://www.theregister.com/Print/2008/11/19/nasa_giss_cockup_catalog/
On GISS cheating…
https://climateaudit.org/2007/05/17/giss-blocks-data-access/
Gordon…Gordon…Gordon…Gordon..Gordon…Gordon…
Please stop banging on with your obsessive fantasies.
It is time to grow up and face facts.
studentb…”Please stop banging on with your obsessive fantasies.
It is time to grow up and face facts”.
***
I am the one supplying the facts, all you’re doing is regurgitating propaganda from known cheaters. I have outlined how both NOAA and GISS cheated by claiming 2014 as the hottest year ever based on probabilities of 0.48 and 0.38 respectively.
No serious scientists pulls off such chinanery, it’s obvious NOAA and GISS have political motivations, as do you and your appeals to authority.
er…emmm…that would be “No serious scientists pulls off such chicanery…”
Strange how USCRN did not see the same outcomes isn’t it?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uscrn-temps-since-2016.jpg
That ‘Lies, damned Lies and Statistics’ quote comes to mind.
Weird! What do you get for the trend for meteorological summer since 1936 using USCRN?
What I was pointing out was that 2016 was higher than this year. Do you dispute that?
Lacking the methodology used for area weighting and an actual calculation of the annual values for meteorological summer I remain skeptical of your claim.
I’m not insisting you’re wrong, rather that you’ve failed to clearly present a clear and compelling case.
The USCRN data (Monthly, Daily, Hourly and SubHourly) is freely available to all who want it. If you believe I am wrong, go for it.
How are calculating those values? Including ever thermometer? Or properly weighting all areas equality.
Or using thermometers that are not as accurate as the USCRN ones are.
So you don’t know if you calculated USA ave T in a sensible way, but you’re sure there are lies or worse going on?
Nate: You expect GISS to be THAT hot in August?
rlh…”Gravity opposed by muscles that keep the COG over the upwards/downwards force point.
No such opposing force acts on the Moon (or anything in orbit/freefall)”.
***
You have demonstrated a good ability to think logically but in your argument above, you are comparing apples to oranges. The Moon exists in a vastly different atmosphere than a human walking on the surface. For one, the Moon has an immense mass and it is moving with constant velocity/momentum against no air resistance in an instantaneous tangential direction to a radial line from Earth’s centre (presuming a circular orbit).
None of that applies to the human walking on the surface except for the force of gravity, which is stronger for the human than for the Moon.
The Moon is not in free fall, a word used to describe a mass falling (accelerating) toward Earth under the influence of gravity. A body in free fall changes vertical position but the Moon does not, otherwise, it would lose orbit and eventually crash into Earth.
The Moon is trying to follow a linear path at each instant at relatively the same altitude. Because its orbit is slightly elliptical, the altitude varies slightly but that variation in altitude is due to the ratio change between the Moon’s relatively constant linear momentum and the varying vertical component of gravitational force. At no time is there an acceleration toward Earth, otherwise the Moon would change altitude, which would prove disastrous.
Dear Gordon,
Just let it go…let it go.
Let it go like a balloon in the wind.
You will feel much better I assure you.
Your favourite nurse.
nurse ratchet, aka prof p…”Dear Gordon, Just let it golet it go”.
***
Why, prof, too complicated for you?
“The Moon is not in free fall, a word used to describe a mass falling (accelerating) toward Earth under the influence of gravity.”
The Moon is not falling (accelerating) toward Earth under the influence of gravity despite Newton and others claiming it is. Sure.
Gordon,
An acceleration is merely a change in the vector quantity of velocity.
A fighter jet can do a high g turn without changing altitude, but it is still accelerating.
The Moon is changing velocity as it orbits, hence it is accelerating.
You would probably know this, but you were drunk when you didn’t take that Astronomy final.
Sunspot number: 87
Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 0 days
2021 total: 56 days (22%)
{it seems unlikely to get to 100 for the
year}
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 5.40×10^10 W Cold
Max: 49.4×10^10 W Hot (10/1957)
Min: 2.05×10^10 W Cold (02/2009)
[Thermosphere appears to be climbing out the
freezer.
But it does not seem like it close yet to causing
satellite or space junk to have more atmospheric
drag.}
“Norway just witnessed its hottest September day in history.”
Remind me again – when will that cooling begin?
Are you saying that September in Norway was hotter than it was in July or August?
No. Why should you ask such a dumb question?
Because you seem to think that the USA does different things to what the thermometers recorded.
Then comes Jim Steele to mess with the narrative.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dXckyHN5J2I
Like a Boss:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2016/10/18/like-a-boss/
That does not look good on you, Norman. Jim tends to say stuff, and you just acted like a High Expectation Auditor.
Even preppers are now hunkering down for the la Nina
https://youtu.be/ZiPLNAXGS1s
The guy in the video talks only about freezing weather and snow related to La Ninas. He forgot to mention the heat domes we suffered through in Pacific Northwest in June 2021, which NOAA related to the recent La Nina.
And don’t forget droughts and Atlantic Hurricanes.
“Summer 2021 was the hottest on record for the continent of Europe. It averaged 1.42C above the 1981-2010 climate baseline. Data from ERA5.”
Now, let me guess ……. ERA5 is corrupt too.
Just like the USA was hotter this year that previously. Not according to USCRN it wasn’t.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uscrn-temps-since-2016.jpg
Sigh.
“emit a long, deep audible breath expressing sadness, relief, tiredness, or similar.”
“Lies, damned lies and statistics”
Start earning today from $600 to $754 easily by working online from home. Last month I generated and received $15663 from this job by giving this only a maximum 2 hours a day of my life. Easiest job in the world and earning from this job is just awesome. Everybody can now get this job and start earning cash online right now by just following instructions, just open the web and visit please……………….➤ http://www.ExtraRich1.com
Not yet.
The official date for the release of GISS monthly data is the third Thursday of the following month, though it occasionally comes out earlier that week.
” Is that your analysis or an analysis offered by NOAA? If the latter, why do you continue to spread propaganda based on fudged data? Both NOAA and GISS have been trying to downgrade the 1930s warming for a long time. ”
As u8sual, the same lies all the time by this blog’s dumbest commenter.
Though having been corrected many times, he endlessly repeats the same bullshit.
And the most disgusting fact is that he never claims about NOAA’s allegedly fudged data, when that same data is used by… John Christy:
climaterealism.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/01-08-21-OSTP-Christy-Record-Temperatures-in-the-United-States.pdf
In that paper, everybody can see that NOAA’s USHCN data shows the 1930’s on top for CONUS.
Nearly the same is shown when looking at GHCN daily data – but, of course, only when you process absolute temperatures; the only exception being that there, July 1901 is even above July 1936:
1901 7 25.38
1936 7 24.97
1934 7 24.75
1931 7 24.50
1980 7 24.42
1954 7 24.24
1935 7 24.17
1966 7 24.13
1921 7 24.12
1955 7 24.10
When processing anomalies with annual cycle removal instead, things become very different because many fall and winter months get pushed above summer months, because their departure from the corresponding monthly means are higher:
2012 3 3.25
2006 1 3.15
1910 3 3.15
2015 12 3.14
1954 2 2.88
2017 2 2.78
1930 2 2.59
1947 10 2.58
1939 12 2.51
1990 1 2.50
That is far too high for Ignoramuses.
Robertson always writes bullshit here – regardless what he writes about.
“July 1901 is even above July 1936”
And will always be so, regardless if you are using anomalies or absolutes.
Gordon Robertson, DREMT
If a cannon is rotating end-over-end when fired, does the cannonball continue to rotate at the same rate and in the same direction after leaving the barrel?
I ask this because it occurred to me that if Newton’s cannon faces East, it is rotating end-over-end once every 24 hours due to the Earth’s rotation.
The cannonball it fires would also rotate once every 24 hours even in a 90 minute orbit.
The cannon is not “rotating end over end”, E man. The cannon is not rotating on its own axis, it is rotating about the Earth’s axis, same as every part of the Earth.
Surely you don’t think Mt. Everest is rotating on its own axis, do you?
Do you!?
“The cannon is not rotating on its own axis, it is rotating about the Earths axis”
Exactly as EM said. So if the orbit was once every 90 mins or once every 24 hours the rotation of the cannonball would be the same wouldn’t it?
RLH, you are still confusing “orbiting” with “rotating”.
You can’t learn.
“EARTHS ORBIT AND ROTATION DEFINITION
The Earth moves in two different ways. Earth orbits the sun once a year and rotates on its axis once a day. The Earths orbit makes a circle around the sun. At the same time the Earth orbits around the sun, it also spins. In science, we call that rotating on its axis. Since the Earth orbits the sun AND rotates on its axis at the same time we experience seasons, day and night, and changing shadows throughout the day.”
Yes, Earth has both motions. Moon, and the ball-on-a-string, only have one motion — orbiting.
And the Earth is different to the Moon how? Bigger?
Earth has both motions. Moon, and the ball-on-a-string, only have one motion — orbiting.
Why would the Moon have different motions to the Earth? Given that they both are in orbits that are governed by gravity.
DREMT
So the cannon and unfired cannon ball are rotating once every 24 hours about the Earth’s axis and the fired cannon ball will continue to rotate about the Earth’s axis once every 24 hours.
So where does this nonsense about the cannonball rotating about the Earth’s axis once per orbit come from?
I think this is Ent’s way of saying he knows he’s lost. He’s just throwing out nonsense. He has NOTHING.
“So where does this nonsense about the cannonball rotating about the Earth’s axis once per orbit come from?”
You do not believe in orbital motion!?
pups wrote:
You clowns come so close to getting it, but fail in the end.
The cannon ball, while attached to the Earth, is in fact rotating once every 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds with respect to other, distant, stars. When fired from a cannon along the Equator, it retains that rate of rotation. However, if it’s velocity is great enough to reach low Earth orbit, it will still be rotating at that rate, while it’s orbit period is about 90 minutes. As a result, an observer would not see the same side from the ground as it orbits. The observer would see the same side again only after one solar day has passed.
E. Swanson, orbital motion does not translate to axial rotation.
Stick with your brooms and mops. Physics is WAY over your head. (That’s why you were unable to answer the simple barbell problem.)
I wonder if Swanson also believes that Mt. Everest is rotating on its own axis!?
Engineers learn the physics and then learn how to apply the physics.
Swanson is right.
I wonder if Pangburn also believes that Mt. Everest is rotating on its own axis!?
The TEAM of Morons misses the main point made.
A 24 h rotation DOES NOT MATCH a 90 minute orbital period!
The ball does not keep the same face to the Earth.
Oh well, they lose again, and pretend they didnt.
“The cannon ball, while attached to the Earth, is in fact rotating once every 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4 seconds with respect to other, distant, stars. When fired from a cannon along the Equator, it retains that rate of rotation. However, if it’s velocity is great enough to reach low Earth orbit, it will still be rotating at that rate, while it’s orbit period is about 90 minutes. As a result, an observer would not see the same side from the ground as it orbits.”
When first fired from a cannon along the equator, an X on the bottom of the cannonball points towards the ground. Halfway around the orbit, the X is still pointing towards the ground, because there was nothing to cause the cannonball to rotate on its own axis along the journey. Just like if a car started driving along an imaginary road that went right around the equator, it would not be sliding along the ground, backwards, on its roof by the time it was halfway round the journey.
That’s easy to wrongly write DREMT. You have to now follow-up your assertion with a proof of concept test. You will need to put your test up on youtube so others can view it.
Unfortunately for DREMT astute physicists already know the cannonball arrow will continue to point in the direction it leaves the cannon unless there is an additional torque applied to start the cannonball rotating so that its “orientation will change through 360 degrees per lap.” as DREMT asserts & as stated that torque is not present unless that torque was applied to the ball in the cannon barrel & reacted by the cannon.
“Unfortunately for DREMT astute physicists already know the cannonball arrow will continue to point in the direction it leaves the cannon…”
…and if the car “continued to point in the same direction” (as you mean it), the car would have to be sliding along, upside down, backwards on its roof by the time it was halfway around the equator.
pups wrote:
pups has already agreed that the cannonball is rotating with the Earth before it leaves the cannon. Therefore, upon exiting the muzzle, it will retain that rate of angular rotation, about once a day. If it is in LEO, it will return over the cannon after about 91 minutes, during which time, it will have rotated only 22.9 degrees wrt the stars. Your “X” spot won’t reappear over the cannon until that 23hrs 53min passes.
pups continues to ignore the physics of inertial reference frames, i.e., the necessity of measuring rotation using a coordinate system fixed in the stars.
Swanson, when you claim you are “measuring rotation using a coordinate system fixed in the stars”, all you are actually doing is claiming that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion like the “moon on the right”, in the below gif:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
and that “axial rotation” is separate to this motion. What we are currently debating is whether “orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion like the “moon on the left”, or the “moon on the right”.
You cannot just assume that the cannonball will move as you wish, “relative to the stars”, use that as a premise in your argument, then conclude that the cannonball remains oriented with one face always pointing “towards a fixed star”! That is circular logic.
“Just like if a car started driving along an imaginary road that went right around the equator”
Again, can’t apply physics to the real situation? Go with the Faulty Analogy Fallacy!
Cannonballs have no wheels or roads to drive on and are not in contact with the surface.
You fail again!
Think of the car, Swanson. If it remained pointing the same way throughout its journey, “relative to the stars” it would have to be sliding along on its roof, upside down, backwards by the time it was halfway round. I keep repeating this point, and nobody addresses it. Especially the backwards part. The cannonball is fired straight forwards from the cannon. It cannot be travelling upside down and backwards by the time it is halfway around the globe.
You do understand that cannonballs are pretty round?
How do you know which is the front end of a cannonball?
Hence why I used the example of the car…
Apparently it is pointless to argue with people who do not understand the physics and are not aware that they do not understand the physics.
Swanson is right.
If the car was in orbit, you’ll have to ask Elon which way it is now pointing.
“it would have to be sliding along on its roof, upside down, backwards by the time it was halfway round.”
Yes that would be crazy for a car.
Not for a spherical cannonball with no wheels or roof, no upside down in vacuum.
You see why that is Faulty Analogy? Anyway smart people can see that.
Excellent DR EMPTY,
“If it remained pointing the same way throughout its journey, relative to the stars it would have to be sliding along on its roof, upside down, backwards by the time it was halfway round.”
That’s quite right, the reason it doesn’t do that is that a car driving around the world, rotates once around the axis perpendicular to the direction of travel and perpendicular to the force of gravity, exactly once per trip around the world.
Splendid, the car rotates once per trip around the world, just like the Moon, the ball on the string, Mt Everest, My Little Pony and the chalk circle.
Fanfuckingtastic!
OK, bob.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-824731
You haven’t argued, Dan. Never mind.
” What we are currently debating is whether ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ is motion like the ‘moon on the left’, or the ‘moon on the right’
False!
This is not a question of what things are called, or how things are labeled.
It is a question of whether a fired cannonball will keep the same side pointed to the Earth or not.
That is a answerable question. It either does or it doesnt.
You claim that by some magical unexplained force, it will, upon being fired from the cannon, start to TURN, IOW rotate, to always face the Earth as it Orbits.
Ordinary Newton’s Laws say it does not.
Look at Galileos experiments. He fired spherical cannonballs horizontally. Gravity applied a vertical force on them, acting thru the COM.
Gravity gave the balls a vertical acceleration. It did not Turn the ball or give it rotation. Why would it? It was applying no torque on these balls.
Thus the balls fell to Earth, following a parabolic path, but did not reorient or rotate in the process.
“Halfway around the orbit, the X is still pointing towards the ground, because there was nothing to cause the cannonball to rotate on its own axis along the journey.”
So it rotates about its own axis so that it continues to point at the ground because nothing causes it to rotate.
It is not rotating on its own axis to continue to point at the ground.
…as observed from the cannonball.
Incorrect.
How so?
…because the observation is made from the same perspective as is shown in this animation, and not from the cannonball itself:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball
In the observation the cannonball’s “orientation will change through 360 degrees per lap.” whereas the cannonball is not rotating on its own axis to continue to point at the ground as observed from the cannonball.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
So that’s, like, your opinion, Kiddo.
Yes, DREMT has lots of opinions and a very few facts.
Willard, Ball4, please stop trolling.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Added DUDEISM to your Master Argument:
(DUDEISM) Well, that’s, like, my opinion. I have every right to think differently, and will continue to do so.
We’re now at version 1.7.
Many thanks!
Willard, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-58508547
I am inclined to agree with President Biden.
If you go to work unvaccinated and unmasked you are a threat to other workers and should be banned like any other Health and Safety hazard.
Ent, if you believe a vaccination and mask will keep you safe then why are you afraid of someone that is unvaccinated and unmasked?
Maybe you’re just afraid of your own shadow…..
In fact, new theories are emerging that some of the vaccines are causing new variants. The vaccines are so ineffective that the virus can survive, mutate, and infect others. People that got the vaccine are more “dangerous” than people that did not get it!
Polio and Measles mutated this way didn’t they. Because the vaccines effectively killed them off.
If a vaccine is effective, mutations are much less likely.
So vaccines worked against Polio and Measles but not against Covid.
Yes, if a vaccine is effective, mutations are much less likely.
So, despite the evidence, you claim that the Covid vaccine(s) are ineffective.
Maybe you should ask surgeons and all theater staff not to wear masks when operating on you. After all, you have nothing to fear.
RLH, I have nothing against you wearing a mask. You can wear two, three, a dozen. I don’t care.
Why do you feel compelled to force others to be as stupid as you?
So you don’t believe that surgeons should be forced to wear masks to operate on you?
Why do you feel compelled to force others to be as stupid as you?
There is no evidence that wearing a mask protects anyone even in the operating room. Here is study where no masks were worn in operating room for 6 months to compare infection rates. https://benjaminfulford.net/2020/09/14/masks-do-not-protect-anyone-even-in-operating-rooms/
C’mon, Kennui. First hit:
> The wearing of a surgical face mask had no effect upon the overall operating room environmental contamination and probably work only to redirect the projectile effect of talking and breathing.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1157412/
That’s just a way to say that masks only work for what they’re meant to do!
Unless you think that masks reduce the number of bacteria in the room of those who wear them?
I get a big laugh when seeing that some are gullible to such an extent that thy believe in information produced by arrogant nuts writing:
” The degeneration of the United States under the fake Biden regime… ”
Wow wow wow.
Biden is a psychopath like you.
Probably. Probably?
‘Probably’ is someone’s unproven bias.
Meanwhile the preponderance of scientific literature about masks say they don’t prevent the spread of viruses. Proven.
See: Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare SettingsPersonal Protective and Environmental Measures
Link won’t post
> ‘Probably’ is someone’s unproven bias. Meanwhile the preponderance
https://imgflip.com/i/5mljez
My understanding is, that surgeons wear masks in order to prevent pieces of hair, skin and saliva from falling straight into an open wound. It is not there to stop viruses. For the similar reasons, masks *might* be effective in the case of people coughing sneezing and spitting on others while talking, otherwise there is no physical mechanism for their efficacy. If you’re not coughing, sneezing or speaking at the top of your lungs, the mask probably makes no difference; you know, just like dr. fausci used to say before he got into game. If you are sneezing, coughing (or spitting while speaking) you’re probably sick and in that case you should stay home. Unless of course you have cancer or allergies, those are not communicable.
> surgeons wear masks in order to prevent pieces of hair, skin and saliva from falling straight into an open wound. It is not there to stop viruses.
I think it’s safe to say that masks cannot stop viruses to propagate through substantiation.
> substantiation
I mean consubstantiation.
I think it is safe to say that in the case of the surgery it is wholly irrelevant. MY pint is – viruses that travel on large particles are stopped by the masks, but that is only relevant if the person coughs and sneezes.
..and viruses that don’t need large drops to spread and can be carried by the microscopic aerosols, don’t care about masks.
You’re quite right, Cot.
I should also mention that masks are of little use for surgeons who don’t breathe.
Next time I am asking for a zombie medic!
i think zombies do breathe, how would they make growling noise then? otoh, they’re definitely shedding pieces of their skin hair etc, so you’re definitely wrong on this one.
Sound effects, cot. Sound effects. Why do you think we find them next to Radioshacks?
On a more serious note:
https://sci-hub.se/10.1007/BF02067132
“Maybe youre just afraid”
I’ve worked in Biology and Biomedical science most of my professional life.
Damn right I’m afraid!
What do you intend to do?
Will you abide by the new rules, avoid places where they apply or have rows with their management?
Walmart stores had big signs up all last winter, requiring masks. Some even handed out masks. I never used them. No store ever asked me to leave. The cashiers seemed to appreciate me. They were forced to wear masks, so they liked customers that refused to comply. One cashier even admitted she hated wearing them, and pulled hers off while scanning my items.
“Walmart stores had big signs up all last winter, requiring masks.”
If Walmart doesn’t want to serve you, then they don’t have to.
https://www.pnas.org/content/118/4/e2014564118
” The preponderance of evidence indicates that mask wearing reduces transmissibility per contact by reducing transmission of infected respiratory particles in both laboratory and clinical contexts. Public mask wearing is most effective at reducing spread of the virus when compliance is high.”
But probably just part of the Covid conspiracy….
All of the facts are not known yet, so this is presented for interest only.
1) It appears the vaccines are weak and ineffective. More and more people are getting sick from Covid, even after getting the vaccine. The “official” answer is, of course, more vaccinations.
2) It appears mutant variants are occurring from those that got the weak vaccines. Alpha, Beta, Gamma….Lambda, Mu… The Greek alphabet is being rapidly used up.
3) The medical industry still refuses to stress the importance of your immune system. People’s immune system are killing the vaccines in many cases. A healthy immune system is stronger than the vaccine, making the vaccines for healthy people unnecessary.
I’d like to read up on number one. Do you have a source?
Ken, you may need to use a search engine other than Google. Here are two just to get you started:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/28/pfizers-ceo-says-covid-vaccine-effectiveness-drops-to-84percent-after-six-months.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/pfizer-says-vaccine-s-power-wanes-over-time-are-you-n1275311
NBC? CNBC?
Do you have any sources?
Here is Reuters. I would put Reuters as at least one order of magnitude higher in terms of ‘reliable’ than NBC or CNBC.
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-delta-vaccine-idUSL1N2OW1TA
Yeah Ken, that’s why I didn’t waste much time with you.
You shouldn’t waste anyone’s time with fake news.
If I search for research about Masks I can find a plethora of articles, the preponderance of which say masks don’t work.
When I search for ‘weak and ineffective vaccines’ or ‘mutant variants are occurring from people with weak vaccines’ I get nothing except main stream fake news and ‘fact checkers’ like Reuters.
Please stop wasting our time. Its bad enough with the trulls already hijacking the conversation here.
Ken, no one is making you read or respond to my comments.
No one is making you post dumb rumours either.
Here come the attacks from Ken.
He appears frustrated because he knows so little science.
‘Real science’ is not what Clint R does, far from it.
ken…”Id like to read up on number one. Do you have a source?”
***
It’s covered in part in this video…from a former vice-president at Pfizer…
https://www.bitchute.com/video/9Ci2jK1yFoOd/
Thanks for the video by Mike Yeadon. He echoes many concerns that I am having.
As follows:
“You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join with you in resisting somehow … But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. Thats the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked … But of course this isnt the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next … And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you … and you see that everything, everything, has changed … Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves; when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed.”
~ Milton Meyer
Clint R
You have some of the facts that are known and are different to what you have said.
“A healthy immune system is stronger than the vaccine, making the vaccines for healthy people unnecessary.”
This for instance is a confusion of two different facts.
A vaccine works through the immune system.
It stimulates the immune system.
It does not work on its own and cannot be compared in strength.
A healthy immune system and the right vaccine will produce a strong immune response.
“The medical industry still refuses to stress the importance of your immune system.”
No, the medical industry, the vaccine industry works because it uses the important immune system.
“making the vaccines for healthy people unnecessary.”
More misinformation.
People with healthy immune systems died when exposed to smallpox, TB and Diphtheria.
Vaccines help the immune system work sooner quicker and better and save lives.
I am all for pro choice. If you do not want to take a vaccine that is your right and responsibility.
If you are over 75 years of age you will have a 1 in 10 chance of dying from a covid infection.
This will be greatly reduced with a vaccine.
Simple true facts.
I have had the vaccine.
Reluctantly as we had little risk in Australia.
When we open up I will have much more freedom to travel.
Is this fair?
No.
Your body, your choice.
It is not a question about vaccines.
They work.
They help reduce illness.
Old people like myself should not be made afraid to take them when they help so much.
Angech, my comment was clearly about Covid, and the related vaccines. I NEVER said anything about vaccines that have a proven record, like for smallpox.
You took things out of context to build your strawmen so you could attack them, hoping to discredit reality.
You ended up discrediting yourself.
The water temperature is dropping so fast it broke the climate supercomputer
https://i.postimg.cc/T2b7tj38/10nino34-Mon.gif
Very Large Telescope captures best images yet of ‘dog-bone’ asteroid
“Sept. 9 (UPI) — The European Southern Observatory’s Very Large Telescope has provided astronomers their best view yet of Kleopatra, the “dog-bone” asteroid.
Using the high-resolution images captured by VLT, astronomers were able to precisely constrain the asteroid’s shape and mass.”
…
“Scientists used the new observations and model to estimate the influence of Kleopatra’s gravity on the lunar orbits.
The calculations, in turn, allowed researchers to determine the asteroid’s mass, revealing it to be 35% less than earlier approximations.”
https://www.upi.com/Science_News/2021/09/09/kleopatra-asteroid-vlt/5311631190439/
“As revealing as VLT’s images proved, astronomers are anxious to captured even higher-definition images using the Extremely Large Telescope, which is expected to capture “first light” in 2026.”
[ELT is 39 meter ground base and near 4 other telescope largest telescope in the world- they tie them all together- like radio telescopes typically do- using interferometry
linked from above:
“Context. The recent estimates of the 3D shape of the M/Xe-type triple asteroid system (216) Kleopatra indicated a density of ~5 g cm−3, which is by far the highest for a small Solar System body. Such a high density implies a high metal content as well as a low porosity which is not easy to reconcile with its peculiar dumbbell shape.”
…
Results. The shape of (216) Kleopatra is very close to an equilibrium dumbbell figure with two lobes and a thick neck. Its volume equivalent diameter (118.75 1.40) km and mass (2.97 0.32) 1018 kg (i.e., 56% lower than previously reported) imply a bulk density of (3.38 0.50) g cm−3. Such a low density for a supposedly metal-rich body indicates a substantial porosity within the primary. This porous structure along with its near equilibrium shape is compatible with a formation scenario including a giant impact followed by reaccumulation. (216) Kleopatras current rotation period and dumbbell shape imply that it is in a critically rotating state. The low effective gravity along the equator of the body, together with the equatorial orbits of the moons and possibly rubble-pile structure, opens the possibility that the moons formed via mass shedding.”
https://www.aanda.org/component/article?access=doi&doi=10.1051/0004-6361/202140874
So, Kleopatra went heavy metal mine, into rumble pile- and is more interesting as rumble pile.
{Interesting from my POV is mineable- also rumble pile rocks are scientifically interesting}.
Looks a possible mining target.
The constriction gives low delta V access to the surface.
wiki, 216 Kleopatra:
Aphelion 3.4951 AU
Perihelion 2.0931 AU
Semi-major axis 2.7941 AU
Eccentricity 0.2509
Orbital period 4.67 yr (1,706 d)
Inclination 13.113
Let’s give them for Mars, wiki:
Aphelion 249200000 km (1.666 AU)
Perihelion 206700000 km (1.382 AU)
Semi-major axis 227939200 km (1.523679 AU)
Eccentricity 0.0934
Orbital period 686.980 d
Inclination
1.850° to ecliptic;
5.65° the Sun’s equator;
1.63° to invariable plane
So, 216 Kleopatra is a lot more elliptical
and much greater inclination.
And orbital speed: NA
but year is 4.67 yr (1,706 days) and Mars is
Orbital period 686.980 days
And let’s look Vesta, which we have orbited:
4 Vesta:
Inclination 7.14043° to ecliptic
5.58° to invariable plane
And:
Aphelion 2.57138 AU (384.673 Gm)
Perihelion 2.15221 AU (321.966 Gm)
Semi-major axis 2.36179 AU (353.319 Gm)
Eccentricity 0.08874
Orbital period 3.63 yr (1325.75 d)
Average orbital speed 19.34 km/s
I would if going to Kleopatra go when further out and lower orbital velocity, which make easier to change the inclination. And you might want to go to Mercury to go to Kleopatra.
So gravity assist of Venus and changing inclination, gravity assist of Mercury changing inclination, and accelerating at Mercury to get to Kleopatra. And you will arriving near Kleopatra
at slower velocity than it is, and patched conic alter inclination and get to it in shorter time period.
But much faster and easier if you could refuel in Venus orbit, go from Venus orbit directly to Kleopatra.
So when you can refuel anywhere in space, that would be the time to go to Kleopatra to mine it. But being able to refuel at Venus orbit is much better than Earth or Mars orbits {or our Moon}.
The time to get to Jupiter from in simple Hohmann, is quite long.
I will check it:
You leave Earth June 2022 and trip time is 2.7313 Years:
http://clowder.net/hop/railroad/EJ.htm
From Venus, you leave from Venus orbit
Just miss August window have wait 2022 April window and
2.5506 Years to get there. From Mercury, leave in Dec 2021
and take 2.3367 Years to get to Jupiter.
No one goes directly to Jupiter and take +2 year. New Horizon flew thru Jupiter:
“On January 19, 2006, New Horizons was launched from Cape Canavera… approach on February 28, 2007” so a year and 1 month would be one of faster ways going past Jupiter.
So, as guess from Earth orbit it take about 2 years but from Venus it’s not going to much better than 1.5 years.
So crew sent would have a lot radiation and weightless, and lack of much sunlight.
Since time is main problem, I go there with something not quite a fast As New Horizon, and use a lot rocket power when close to it- and inclination “becomes” less of issue, so arrive when Kleopatra
was closer to sun, ie, around 2.0931 AU.
So, something like, Venus to Earth in 2 months or less, use earth gravity assist to change inclination as much as possible. Might also go Mercury instead. Or Venus to Mercury, back to Venus and/or Earth. It seems nuclear rocket would in this case be quite helpful- though, I wasn’t thinking of Nuclear Orion which could do it in few months.
But if you accept long trip, and have artificial gravity and enough radiation shielding, one could do with chemical rockets and would be talking bringing more 100 tons of stuff to the rock. Or other using nuclear Orion, if go there fast, it’s much more expensive to bring much mass with you.
And could both sent vast amount cargo and no crew, to the Aphelion, and send crew fast [though with artificial gravity and lots shielding] and one arrives when it’s perihelion.
It has not been explore much to have much a clue you what you going to there.
Those following the delusional arguments by Gordon Robertson and his fellows may care to read “The Demon Haunted World” by Carl Sagan.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Demon-Haunted-World-Science-Candle-Paperback/dp/B00FOT4Y5E/
The book chronicles the American retreat from science into superstition.
So you’re using Carl Sagan as some authority on science?
entropic…”Those following the delusional arguments by Gordon Robertson and his fellows may care to read The Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan”.
***
Sagan was an arrogant SOB who thrived on belittling fellow scientists. He was wrong about Venus and thermal runaway yet James Hansen, of NASA GISS, idolized him, hence his stupid tipping point theory. Although Hansen had a degree in physics, he spent most of his career doing astronomy.
Why would I want to read a book by someone who made statements like…”When the Big Bang Happened”, in a voice that resembled Elmer Fudd?
“The man known as the QAnon Shaman — who was pictured during the Capitol riot with his face painted underneath a fur hat adorned with horns — has been denied temporary release.”
I believe some posters here may have occasionally donned a bit of face paint and a fur hat.
“Chansley was diagnosed with transient schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression and anxiety during his pretrial detention, Reuters reports. He faces between 41 and 51 months in prison.”
Yes – that does not surprise me.
rlh…”The force of gravity (which can be considered to act on a single point at the center of a mass) provides the requirements for an orbit of one body with another. It does not provide the force required to force an orientation during that orbit on any spherical body doing that orbit”.
***
The body does not have to turn therefore does not require a force.
I described the dynamics of an airliner orbiting the Earth at 35,000 feet. Ignoring thermals and lower pressure regions that would cause the plane to drop, or rise, just consider that it is in equilibrium between the downward force of gravity and the upward force of lift due to the action of airfoil surfaces interacting with air.
No matter where it is in its orbit, that relationship remains the same, therefore it maintains altitude without needing to turn.
BTW…airliners fly at 35,000 to 40,000 feet because it frees them from the weather conditions I just mentioned.
The airliner is flying in mechanical equilibrium, maintaining 35,000 feet due to a balance between gravity and aerodynamic lift. Meantime, gravity is acting on its COG as you mentioned. Gravity is a continuous field over local, relatively flat regions called tangential planes. One tangential plane melds into the other as the curvature of the Earth gradually changes.
There may be mountains in the tangential planes but their mass is not significant wrt to varying gravitational force. Gravity also acts as if from the Earth’s centre. Mountains with the mass of the Himalaya can deflect a plumb bob slightly but they have no effect on an airliner.
The surface of the Earth is a series of flat tangential planes with curvature only being apparent over about 25 miles. At that, the change in curvature is exceedingly small in a relative sense. For all intents and purposes, the plane is always flying over a relatively flat surface as far as gravitational force is concerned.
Gravity will always hold the plane at the same altitude no matter if the surface underneath is curving. That is, if the lift can be maintained and other factors are ignored, for now.
Since the airliner is always dynamically balanced wrt gravity, it’s as if it is always flying over a flat surface. It’s nose-tail orientation is always relative to that flat surface, therefore it translates in its orbit with no local rotation.
No other force is required to orient the nose-tail axis because it is not turning wrt its COG. Exactly the same with the Moon, the only difference being in the dynamics of balance between gravity and the Moon’s linear momentum.
Take the Moon’s slight elliptical orbit and make it into a straight line. Same thing. No turning motion required.
“The body does not have to turn therefore does not require a force.”
If the body rotates wrt the fixed stars it requires a force to start (and stop) that motion. Traveling on an orbit round something else does not provide any such force.
“Take the Moons slight elliptical orbit and make it into a straight line. Same thing. No turning motion required.”
As the Moon rotates on its own axis once every 27 days or so, it will continue to do that if it is not in Earth’s orbit. Such as a straight line. This rotation can be seen from the Sun which sees all sides of the Moon every 27 days.
rlh…”As the Moon rotates on its own axis once every 27 days or so, it will continue to do that if it is not in Earths orbit. Such as a straight line. This rotation can be seen from the Sun which sees all sides of the Moon every 27 days”.
***
I have proved to you using basic calculus and trigonometry that the Moon is translating with no rotation. You have failed to rebut my argument.
I have also demonstrated using an airliner, that it keeps the same side pointed at the Earth and it cannot rotate about a local axis without crashing.
You are a stubborn man, Richard.
No rotation can be seen from the Sun, all such a perspective shows is a rigid body translating through space. As I have further demonstrated such a rigid body shows only one side to the Earth while a rotating body cannot.
On the other hand, the Earth does rotate on a local axis, and from the Sun, you could see all sides of the Earth each day for 365.25 days. If you stretched the Earth orbit into a straight line, the Earth would be seen to rotate as it translated along the line.
Gordo wrote:
Sorry, Gordo, your “proof” fails a basic geometry test. That’s because the consequences of your delusional physics are impossible.
Link to a UAH TLT August 2021 Temperature Anomaly gridded view:
uahTltAugust2021AnomalyGrid.png
Thanks for a picture representing the UAH grid as it really is, cell by cell.
Badly compared to the ‘official’ contour plot.
An issue with latitude registration of anomaly data and an issue with blanking the unobserved area at the poles have been corrected in the figure linked above.
Remind me again what differences you bring from the ‘official’ contour plot at
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2021/AUGUST2021/202108_Map.png
That is at least in 1.0c (either side of 0.5c centers) steps
Yours has no real scale as +/-2.1c steps are not much use to anyone.
The initial motivation was to produce a visualization with better temperature resolution the “official” contour plot.
RLH says: Yours has no real scale as +/-2.1c steps are not much use to anyone.
I was using the -9.5 to 9.5 C range for consistency with the “official” plot, so a 19 C range. I had arbitrarily picked 64 gradients which made the colorbar default ticks look funny (2.1 C).
By changing the number of gradients to an integer multiple of the 19 C(5*19 = 95 or 0.2 C steps) full range scale, the colorbar defaults are more sensible. See updated chart at above link. Thanks for your critique.
Well the ‘official’ contour plot has the center at 0.0 and then +/-0.5c for the central ‘plateau’ as you know.
Your graduations on either side on center are much quicker in color saturations than that which makes everything look compressed. Which I suppose is your intention.
mark b…”Link to a UAH TLT August 2021 Temperature Anomaly gridded view:”
***
Here’s the official one without the alarmist bs added…What’s with the usage of red???
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2021/AUGUST2021/202108_Map.png
Robertson
While Mark B is a really knowledgeable person, you are no more than am dumb, ignorant boaster, who isn’t able to understand anything correctly.
Don’t you see that it is the same data, but presented in such a way that while the highest anomaly values in the UAH grid (9,504 cells with valid data) are presented ‘as such’ in Mark B’s plot, they are smoothed away in the Spencer/Christy plot?
How is it possible to be so ignorant?
Interesting to see how Chine/Japan shows as blue in one and red in the other.
I was looking at Iceland, but there does seem to be a registration problem in the rendition relative to UAH’s. Perhaps one 2.5 degree cell longitude. I’ll look into that when I have more time, but probably not for a day or two.
There the inverse is true.
clint r ….”All of the facts are not known yet, so this is presented for interest only”.
***
Here’s a link to a former vice-president with Pfizer, who holds no punches talking about the outright fraud being perpetuated…
https://www.bitchute.com/video/9Ci2jK1yFoOd/
He says things that have me feeling skeptical about a few of his comments, but one must not be so naive as to dismiss the worst case possible scenarios.
Several years before WW II eventually broke out, Canadian ace journalist Matthew Halton tried to warn the world about the intentions of Hitler and the Nazis and he was regarded as a nut job. Most Canadian media supported Hitler while Canadian Prime Minister McKenzie King actually visited Hitler and came away with a favourable opinion. Hitler actually liked him, giving him more time in their meeting than he normally would offer.
I am not at the point where I am willing to consider unproved and hearsay conspiracy theories but when someone with the credentials of the scientist at the link above claims the current science is an outright fraud, I am inclined to listen.
He does not leave you with opinions, he supplies the scientific proof.
rlh…”Polio and Measles mutated this way didnt they. Because the vaccines effectively killed them off”.
***
You posted a graph the other day showing polio rising and falling at least 5 times from 2010 – 2060. The vaccine was not introduced till 1955. What caused the polio to go away between 1910 and about 1940?
Also, why did more people die in 1910, then the number of deaths decreased thereafter? Despite two world wars in between?
Courtesy rlh…
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/reported-paralytic-polio-cases-and-deaths-in-the-united-states-since-1910
ps. the graph shows a peak of polio deaths in 1910 then a decrease right up till 1960. The scientists claimed it was the vaccine killed it off when it appears obvious it was dying off on it own.
Seems to me that people were simply eating better and more healthy as the years went by. Also, the diets had between nutrients like B-vitamins, and other vitamins.
Circa 1915, there was an outbreak of pellagra in the southern US states. A young researcher was sent to investigate and concluded immediately that the problem was diet-related. He was ignored while researchers searched for another 22 years for a bacterial or viral cause.
Although niacin had already been discovered it was not till 1937 that another researcher discovered it would cure pellagra.
We have virus on the brain. Whenever something goes wrong, as in Wuhan, we rush off to find a virus, even though we have to create one theoretically.
https://www.news-medical.net/health/Niacin-History.aspx
Prior to 1983, when HIV was announced as the cause of AIDS, the highest risk groups by far for AIDS were male homosexuals gathering in steam baths in New York and San Fransisco, having unprotected sex in orgies promoted by up to six designer drugs. When they started becoming mortally ill, researcher went looking for…you guessed it…a virus.
Luc Montagnnier, credited with finding HIV admitted there was a race on for the ego-trip of being first to find the virus. When it was announced by the Reagan government in 1983, it was proclaimed as the cause of AIDS with no peer review. Not only that, HIV could not meet the criterion set out by the Louis Pasteur Institute in the 1970s for identifying a virus.
At the time, Dr. Peter Duesberg, an expert on viruses like HIV, made a succinct statement. He claimed no known virus could affect only males and he thought it impossible that HIV could be the cause of AIDS. His career was ruined,
Fast forward, a couple of decades, and Montagnier has corroborated his [Duesberg’s] observations. The scientist credited with discovering HIV now thinks AIDS is a lifestyle issue and that HIV is the harmless passenger virus Duesberg claimed it to be.
Another scientist, a former Pfizer principal researcher, Michael Yeadon, is claiming the same about covid. He complains about the same issues, that he is being ostracized by former colleagues and the media.
I don’t care what anyone out there thinks of covid or HIV, it is simply unacceptable to muzzle scientists. This has to stop.
It’s not like world travel didn’t increase dramatically between the 1930s and the 1950s or 1960s. And the virus spread like wildfire during that time.
The peak death from polio was in 1952, not 1910 as you stated.
“ps. the graph shows a peak of polio deaths in 1910 then a decrease right up till 1960.”
Gordon looks at a simple graph and sees something to confirm his beliefs.
But it isnt actually there!
That explains a lot.
Ah, the ranting.
But first, the important stuff:
THE COMING LUNAR ARMADA
A fleet of NASA-funded startups will soon begin to land on the Moon
https://www.science.org/content/article/nasa-funded-startups-will-soon-put-fleet-landers-moon
“This unassuming former data center in Pittsburgh is the new home of Astrobotic, one of a few startups that NASA has selected to ferry scientific instruments to the lunar surface as part of the agency’s $2.6 billion Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program. Starting next year, CLPS landers will reach the Moon’s surface at least twice a year, the agency hopes. It’s an astonishing pace after a decadeslong drought for U.S. science on the lunar surface, says Brett Denevi, a planetary scientist at Johns Hopkins University’s Applied Physics Laboratory. “We’ve been talking about this so long. It’s almost shocking to see it happen.”
Linked from:
http://www.transterrestrial.com/
But then went to https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
And, …
HE’S RIGHT YOU KNOW? It’s all Bullshit and we’re Fucked.
Posted at 1:02 am by Sarah Hoyt:
https://monsterhunternation.com/2021/09/10/this-week-in-politics-its-all-bullshit-and-were-fucked/
Sarah is a newly made American and is one of the more excitable people which post there. I guess one reason why become an American was to leave this kind of stuff behind. But, humans, but anyhow, a quote from it:
“Normally I’d put my angry political takes on Facebook, and the blog is for business or posts that are longer and more well thought out, but I’m currently banned, so here we go. Rant time.”
I appreciated:
” Because we’ve not come to terms with that ghastly and gigantic stack of dead babies over several generations, clearly we need to fight about that right now instead of the giant embarrassing fuck up which should have resulted in a whole bunch of politicians, government employees, and military officers being hung from lamp posts.”
It seem a problem in this world is the lack Pols, hanging from lamp posts.
It’s like, what happened to Christmas?
angech says:
September 11, 2021 at 12:41 AM
Clint R
You have some of the facts that are known and are different to what you have said.
A healthy immune system is stronger than the vaccine, making the vaccines for healthy people unnecessary.
This for instance is a confusion of two different facts.
A vaccine works through the immune system.
It stimulates the immune system.
It does not work on its own and cannot be compared in strength.
A healthy immune system and the right vaccine will produce a strong immune response.
The medical industry still refuses to stress the importance of your immune system.
No, the medical industry, the vaccine industry works because it uses the important immune system.
making the vaccines for healthy people unnecessary.
More misinformation.
People with healthy immune systems died when exposed to smallpox, TB and Diphtheria.
Vaccines help the immune system work sooner quicker and better and save lives.
I am all for pro choice. If you do not want to take a vaccine that is your right and responsibility.
If you are over 75 years of age you will have a 1 in 10 chance of dying from a covid infection.
This will be greatly reduced with a vaccine.
Simple true facts.
I have had the vaccine.
Reluctantly as we had little risk in Australia.
When we open up I will have much more freedom to travel.
Is this fair?
No.
Your body, your choice.
It is not a question about vaccines.
They work.
They help reduce illness.
Old people like myself should not be made afraid to take them when they help so much.
In Germany, we luckily have far less people like Robertson, Clint R, Anderson etc.
All people who endlessly propagate lies over lies.
People who tell you
‘You don’t need to wear masks’
‘Vaccines don’t help’
etc etc etc.
There are on this blog even people who are perverse enough to tell that they would be ready to expose themselves AND others to the COVID19 disease. Incredible.
But I’m over 100 % sure that they all very well manage to protect themselves against COVID19, and CERTAINLY NOT by using Vitamin C, like claims all the time the blog’s dumbest commenter.
They should all have been sent to the main hospital of Little Rock, Arkansas, some weeks ago.
There, they would have seen people praying the doctors to vaccinate them, but the doctors could only reply:
” Sorry, it’s too late”.
And the people died, one after the other, like everywhere else.
But shhhht! COVID19 doesn’t exist, it’s an invention propagated by NASA.
My lady and I are vaccinated and wear masks in shops and on all public transport. Not because we are obliged to do so, but because we see it as an advantage for ourselves and for others.
You are one dumb psychopath.
No I am not.
A psychopath is in my mind a person who
– writes on a blog that a bloodthirsty dictator like Augusto Pinochet is a Leftist, though he was responsible for the death of thousands of exactly those people;
– is perverse enough to tell that he would be ready to expose not only himself to COVID, but even others.
That, Anderson, is what you wrote here, not so long time ago…
Pfui Deibel.
You, pretending like you give a rat’s ass about anyone is comical. The only thing you care about is your leftist agenda. And, yes, Pinochet was bloodthirsty and a leftist.
Pinochet led the coup, supported by the US CIA under Nixon, that overthrew the previous Leftist government.
“After his rise to power, Pinochet persecuted leftists, socialists, and political critics, resulting in the executions of from 1,200 to 3,200 people”
“Pinochet’s military government implemented economic liberalization, including currency stabilization, removed tariff protections for local industry, banned trade unions, and privatized social security and hundreds of state-owned enterprises. Some of the government properties were sold below market price to politically connected buyers, including Pinochet’s own son-in-law.” Wiki
Only in Stephen’s bizarro up is down, black is white universe, was he a Leftist.
So, what about Pinochet was small, limited government?
>Pinochets military government implemented economic liberalization, including currency stabilization, removed tariff protections for local industry, banned trade unions, and privatized social security and hundreds of state-owned enterprises. Some of the government properties were sold below market price to politically connected buyers, including Pinochets own son-in-law. Wiki
LOL-This is big government, dumbshit.
It’s called Fascism, genius. Fascism is left.
You leftist quote wiki like it is the authority. It is run by a bunch of leftists. Show me where Wiki describes any prominent Democrat as far-left.
Your Big Government adopted a constitution written by Hayek, Troglodyte. Besides:
https://undsoc.org/2021/05/12/corporations-and-the-nazi-regime/
Pray tell more about sociopathy.
“privatized social security and hundreds of state-owned enterprises.”
LOL-This is big government, dumbshit”
Stephen you consistently get everything backassward.
There is no rational debate with you.
So, Pinochet controlling who gets what and picking winners and losers, and controls the private sector is on the right? You’re a fool or have your head up your ass. This is Fascism. Fascism is on the left. The right is limited, decentralized, low taxes, low regulations, bill of rights, free market. There is nothing about Pinochet that was conservative. He was a big-government authoritarian. So, no, you can’t argue with me if you’re going to continue with your dumbshit Hitler and Pinochet were on the right. No, they weren’t.
Crony capitalism is the essence of the left. Crony capitalism is Fascism. Fascism is big government and corporations working hand in hand to pick the winners and losers in the marketplace. This is not conservatism or right. Just because Pinochet “privatized” some industries does not mean he was on the right. He picked the winners. Make no mistake, like Hitler and Mussolini; he was in charge.
I will bury you under historical factoids until you turn into Humpty Dumpty, Troglodyte:
https://coreyrobin.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/hayekchile.pdf
Stephen, you are tripling down on stupid.
You twist yourself into a logical pretzel to avoid the possibility that someone on the right could also be a dictator or a bad dude.
” It’s called Fascism, genius. Fascism is left. ”
So, in your opinion, all the dictators in South America who killed leftists were left, right?
For example Jorge Videla in Argentina, responsible for killing 30,000 leftists (communists, socialists, social democrats, etc.).
3,000 of them died on so-called death flights, during which they were thrown naked over the Atlantic.
In Germany people like you are called ‘prevented Fascists’: those who refuse to admit that they secretly dream of a cruel dictatorship in which all leftists would be murdered.
I’m not precisely a Leftist, Anderson.
But, unlike you, I am a 100% Antifascist!
Bindidon, your ineffective flak provides evidence I’m over the target. Thanks.
I’m already aware you are anti-science.
Well Clint R: if science is in your mind what you understand about science, then yes indeed: I’m anti-science, and I am proud being.
Yes Bindidon, you are indeed anti-science. But, it’s worse. You’re anti-reality.
You believe you can support your cult beliefs by listing a group of scientists that you know nothing about. You attempt to hide behind what you perceive as authority figures. You know nothing about the sciences being discussed.
You leftist quote wiki like it is the authority. It is run by a bunch of leftists. Show me where Wiki describes any prominent Democrat as far-left.
Angech, I see you duplicated your comment down here. I’m not certain why you felt the need to do that. But, I will respond in kind:
Angech, my comment was clearly about Covid, and the related vaccines. I NEVER said anything about vaccines that have a proven record, like for smallpox.
You took things out of context to build your strawmen so you could attack them, hoping to discredit reality.
You ended up discrediting yourself.
Speaking of the Dunning-Kruger effect, which works at individual level: would anyone know if a group- or organizational-level version of it has been dubbed something, like – in knowledge management? Yes there is groupthink, but something more akin to the perhaps more specific DK effect?
Try this, mass psychosis and such
https://www.youtube.com/c/academyofideas/videos
Grand Solar Minimum update
https://youtu.be/bpTOt5vZmiM
I suppose nobody will be highly surprised that in the 2.5 degree UAH grid
– the cell with the highest trend since Dec 1978 is here
https://tinyurl.com/8m24czbp
0.50 C / decade
and that
– the cell with the lowest trend since Dec 1978 is here
https://tinyurl.com/59j4jx77
-0.23 C / decade
UAH graphs for Aug 2021 showing Land, Ocean and Combined.
North Pole
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uah-north-pole.jpeg
Northern ExTropics
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uah-northern-ex.jpeg
Northern Hemisphere
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uah-northern-hemi.jpeg
South Pole
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uah-south-pole.jpeg
Southern ExTropics
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uah-southern-ex.jpeg
Southern Hemisphere
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uah-southern-hemi.jpeg
Tropics
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uah-tropics.jpeg
Global
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uah.jpeg
Trends
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uah-1.jpeg
Month on Month differences
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uah-month-on-month.jpeg
Nino 3.4 forecasts (ensemble)
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/NMME/current/images/nino34.rescaling.NMME.png
AMO (Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation)
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/amo.jpeg
Updated AMO with S-G 15 year low pass projection added.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/amo-1.jpeg
It is interesting the satellite data set contains exactly one half of AMO – from bottom to the top, The climate shysters claim AMO doesn’t do anything anyway, we will see about that, but it will take a while.
Yes I realize the the rising part of the AMO cycle exactly corresponds to the rise that has been seen in the satellite data.
The next few years will show if the descending part of the AMO cycle corresponds to a drop in the global temperatures.
What happens if AMO PDO and Solar are all in negative phase.
The future will show if they have any effect.
RLH,
I do hope you realize that:
“The AMO signal is usually defined from the patterns of SST variability in the North Atlantic once any linear trend has been removed. This detrending is intended to remove the influence of greenhouse gas-induced global warming from the analysis.”
i.e. you may simply be looking at a cycle within an overall trend. The question then is how big is this cycle compared to the background trend?
An approximate 60 year cycle that people have claimed does not exist.
Bindidon has both trended and detrended figures if you consider that important. See below.
Both show that the AMO is at a peak (or just past one).
“An approximate 60 year cycle that people have claimed does not exist.”
What we see in the 20th century AMO exists. What we don’t see is it repeated in previous centuries.
The AMO is what the temperature of the North Atlantic did, thus it is CLEARLY PRESENT in the detrended Northern Hemisphere record as well.
https://tinyurl.com/bzsy9sn8
If you look just at the detrended SH, the AMO pattern is just not in there. It had little influence on the SH.
This is consistent with its mid 20th century pattern arising from Anthro aerosols, pollution.
Mid 20th century air pollution originated mostly on both sides of the North Atlantic, the US East coast and Europe, hence that is where the pattern is dominant.
Nate: My data shows that the AMO has had an ~60 cycle since about 1855 or so.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/amo-1.jpeg
“The Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) has been identified as a coherent mode of natural variability occurring in the North Atlantic Ocean with an estimated period of 60-80 years.”
https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/atlantic-multi-decadal-oscillation-amo
“The AMO is correlated to air temperatures and rainfall over much of the Northern Hemisphere, in particular in the summer climate in North America and Europe. Through changes in atmospheric circulation, the AMO can also modulate spring snowfall over the Alps and glaciers’ mass variability. Rainfall patterns are affected in North Eastern Brazilian and African Sahel. It is also associated with changes in the frequency of North American droughts and is reflected in the frequency of severe Atlantic hurricane activity.
Recent research suggests that the AMO is related to the past occurrence of major droughts in the US Midwest and the Southwest. When the AMO is in its warm phase, these droughts tend to be more frequent or prolonged. Two of the most severe droughts of the 20th century occurred during the positive AMO between 1925 and 1965: The Dust Bowl of the 1930s and the 1950s drought. Florida and the Pacific Northwest tend to be the oppositewarm AMO, more rainfall.
Climate models suggest that a warm phase of the AMO strengthens the summer rainfall over India and Sahel and the North Atlantic tropical cyclone activity. Paleoclimatologic studies have confirmed this patternincreased rainfall in AMO warmphase, decreased in cold phasefor the Sahel over the past 3,000 years.”
“had an ~60 cycle since about 1855 or so.”
1 and 1/2 periods….
“KEY LIMITATIONS:
Instrumental SST data are short in length compared to the multidecadal timescale of the AMO”
look I am not saying the N. Atlantic does not have natural decades long variation.
Im saying that the specific pattern of the 20th century may not continue into the past, and may have EXTERNAL aperiodic causes.
Your data shows two prominent minima in AMO.
I already explained the second one 1950-1975 correlated well to anthro aerosols, pollution.
The first one at turn of the century, is correlated well to major volcanic eruptions, Krakatoa, 1883, Santa Maria 1902, Novarupta 1912.
“I already explained the second one 1950-1975 correlated well to anthro aerosols, pollution.”
Sure co-incidental external effects just so happened to conspire to make things non-cyclic but instead one offs.
All I need to do is tweak the control knobs on my ‘accurate models’ correctly and all will come out as CO2 is the driver of everything.
The PDO is cyclic but the AMO is not. Got you.
“Sure co-incidental external effects just so happened to conspire to make things non-cyclic but instead one offs.”
When there are only TWO minima in the record, external factors could very well be responsible for them.
Volcanoes are well known to cause cooling. Are you saying the largest ones in the last century didnt do that?
Air pollution was severe in US East coast cities, and W. European cities in the 1950s-70s. Smog. People could visually verify that it blocked sunlight.
DO you think this didnt happen?
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abb0425
“The AMO-like variations result from decadal variations in external VA and AA (mainly from North America and Europe) forcing, which reduces surface solar radiation and cools SSTs during 19651995 relative to 19351960 or after the late 1990s.”
VA volcanic aerosols
AA Anthro aerosols
Here are AMO PDO and Global T. Ive scaled AMO and PDO to get a match to features I can see in the Global T record. Feel free to play with these scale factors to see if you can do better.
https://tinyurl.com/3krjza2x
You can see that the PDO and AMO may help account for some of the wiggles on the record, but cannot account for the overall accelerated upward trend.
Sorry, this one is better, with no detrending of global T.
https://tinyurl.com/tbnrkb78
Jisao PDO finishes in 2019.
I use NOAA for my up to date data as shown.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/jisao-pdo.jpeg
Sorry Dec 2017 instead of 2019.
Ok, but still cannot account for the overall accelerated upward trend.
For that you are relying on the records from 100 years ago and more being accurate. Still no explanation of why accurate USCRN records show such divergence on Tmean, (Tmin+Tmax)/2 data which is mostly what you are referring to.
Until we solve that puzzle nothing is that certain to my mind.
“(Tmin+Tmax)/2 data which is mostly what you are referring to.
Until we solve that puzzle nothing is that certain to my mind.”
Since you have not yet shown that this effect should have any significant impact on Trends, regional or Global, this is decidedly a big red herring.
We also have confirmation from Reanalysis records that dont have this limitation and agree with the other records.
It is a ‘we don’t know everything, therefore we know nothing’ attitude, which is anti-science, and a poor excuse to deny what is happening.
Sure Nate, anything that might suggest that there are unknown and un-allowed for influences on Tmean, (Tmin+Tmax)/2, are not relevant.
Without knowing what causes those problems to occur.
You will quite happily use Cosine weighting but will not consider other things that are also Latitude related (20%-25%) to be of any import whatsoever.
So Cosine weighting good. Anything else bad.
“This error could affect spatial averaging. For example, the Fallbrook CA site with the highest positive DeltaT value of 1.39 C is just 147 miles away from the Yuma site with one of the largest negative values of -0.58. If these two stations were reading the identical true mean temperature, they would appear to disagree by nearly 2 full degrees Celsius using the standard minmax method. “
Modern, up to date daily profiles for
Fallbrook
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/53151_fallbrook_5-ne.jpeg
Yuma
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/53154_yuma_27-ene.jpeg
Nate: Any idea of the cosine weighting from 25 to 50 Latitude? How it compares to what I have shown?
“Sure Nate, anything..”
This looks intended for someone else, it has no relevance to my post.
PDO
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/pdo.jpeg
Sorry – forgot the caption change
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/pdo-1.jpeg
Now updated to Aug 2021
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/pdo-2.jpeg
RLH, Your various 15 year low pass filters look like 30 year filters, given the truncation at each end of the series. What filter did you apply?
They are CTRM filters of 180, 149 and 116 months.
Don’t forget that CTRM filters have (180+149+116)/2 spaces at each end.
RLH, OK, what’s the frequency response of your “180, 149 and 116 months” CTRM filter?
Gaussian. See previous discussions and my first post (some time ago now)
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2014/02/19/first-post/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_filter
“It is considered the ideal time domain filter”
swannie…”…an observer would not see the same side from the ground as it orbits. The observer would see the same side again only after one solar day has passed”.
***
Don’t be silly, Swannie. No one has claimed the same observer sees the same side of the Moon at all times. Obviously, however, if there were people stationed around the Equator, say at every line of longitude, they’d all see the same side of the cannonball or the Moon.
Since the Moon orbits every 27.5 days, if you divided the Equator into 27.5 divisions and stationed a person at each division point (almost at each of the 24 longitudinal points) each person would see exactly the same side of the Moon. However, if the Moon was rotating once per orbit about its local axis, all people stationed every 27.5th division, would see a different side of the Moon.
Gordo, as usual, displays his total failure to grasp what I wrote. The discussion was about pups cannonball-in-orbit mental model. The cannonball rotates with the same rate as the Earth, but orbits much faster. As a result, observer(s) stationed along the Equator would see different sides as it orbits which is just like the Moon’s appearance as seen from the Sun. The observer at the cannon’s launch location wouldn’t observe the same side (marked “X”) until the Earth had rotated for about one day.
E. Swanson, you get so confused.
Not only do you confuse orbiting with rotating, but now you’re confused about libration.
Stick with mops and brooms. That’s your mental limit.
“if the Moon was rotating once per orbit about its local axis, (then) all people stationed every 27.5th division, would see a different side of the Moon.”
But they don’t since you can quiz people all over the world, even some stationed every 27.5th divison and they all report seeing the same man in the moon.
This is because as Gordon writes: the moon’s “orientation will change through 360 degrees per lap.” keeping the man in the moon facing Earth.
And is ‘upside down’ when looked at in the southern hemisphere.
https://i.redd.it/djq164jlqcy21.png
Nearly there, Ball4. Now all you need to do is realize that a change in orientation does not equal axial rotation. As Bindidon and the “Soft Spinners” agree, a ball on a string is changing orientation whilst it moves, but it is not rotating on its own axis:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-824731
A ball-on-a-string has NOTHING to do with orbits and orbital mechanics. NOTHING at all.
…apart from the absolutely crucial point that a change in orientation does not equal axial rotation.
…as observed from the moon or ball on string.
There is no mention of that in Bindidon’s comment, sorry.
As I observed, a ball-on-a-string has NOTHING to do with orbits and orbital mechanics. NOTHING at all.
pups still can’t figure out that rotation is “change in orientation” per unit time. pups cartoon modeling can’t explain how the cannon ball’s rotation changes from once a day to 15.7 per day when it orbits.
pups, where in the launch to orbit is the torque applied to change the rotation rate?
…apart from the absolutely crucial point that a change in orientation does not equal axial rotation…
…and apart from the obvious similarity that a ball on a string is rotating about an external axis, and not an internal axis…just like how Newton’s Cannonball would move (Tim admitted upthread that the force from the cannon would create a torque about the external axis, so that’s that)…
Poor, confused Swanson…the cannonball, sitting in the cannon before launch, is not rotating on its own axis. It, along with the rest of the planet, is rotating about the Earth’s axis, but it is not rotating on its own axis. So when it is launched, it is launched without spin at any rate about its own axis.
Any such torque created by the cannon on the cannonball would not be related to the orbital times of the cannonball however. If the orbit was once every 20 mins, once every 24 hours, or once every 2 months the imparted rotation would be the same.
RLH…there is no torque applied about the cannonballs internal axis upon launch. Period. Full stop. End of story.
Just like there is no spin added when launching a baseball.
“there is no torque applied about the cannonballs internal axis upon launch”
So you agree that there is some spin about some axis.
It’s a thought experiment. In the thought experiment, the cannon launches the cannonball without spin.
Allow Tim to explain:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-844805
Please stop trolling, Kiddo.
“So you agree that there is some spin about some axis.”
As agreed by Mr Timothy Folkerts, the force from the cannon imparts a torque about the external axis, i.e. the axis the cannonball orbits around. So the cannonball is launched without spin (i.e. no rotation about an internal axis) but it does rotate about an external axis (i.e. it orbits). An object that is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about an internal axis, moves as per the “moon on the left”, in the below gif:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
You’re still trolling, Kiddo:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-788773
If it has no spin about any axis then it will always face a fixed star. If it has a spin about any axis, then that spin will remain the same regardless of the orbital period it then achieves. Be that 20 mins, 24 hours or 3 months.
You are still not getting it, RLH. The “rotation about an external axis” is the orbit. So no matter how long the object takes to complete the orbit, if it is not rotating about an internal axis, the same face is always oriented towards the inside of the orbit.
What you do not understand it that any rotation that is imparted by the rotation at the surface to any object launched from that surface has only to do with its rotation about its center caused by being launched at the point on the surface.
The actual speed it is launched at, which will determine its orbital period, is not effected by that.
Thus if its orbital period is 20 mins, 24 hours, 27 days or 3 months, its internal rotation rate will still be 24 hours.
You still don’t get it, Kiddo:
You are trolling, the whole “The “rotation about an external axis”” is the trolling.
Please stop trolling.
RLH, why are you still repeating Swanson’s confusion? That has already been debunked. The cannonball, sitting in the cannon before launch, is not rotating on its own axis. It, along with the rest of the planet, is rotating about the Earth’s axis, but it is not rotating on its own axis. So when it is launched, it is launched without spin at any rate about its own axis.
pups is so wedded to its delusions that it can’t understand that when the cannonball is launched, it retains the rate of rotation it had while sitting in the cannon. pups is hopelessly unable to understand that Earth coordinates are not an inertial reference frame, but one which which rotates wrt the stars. The cannon ball, once instantly freed from contact with the Earth, still rotates once per day.
OK, here’s a different thought model. Start with the cannonball in geostationary orbit, which is made to rotate once a day, keeping one side pointing toward the Earth. Now, apply rocket thrust to slow it and bring it down to LEO, then another thrust to cause it to transition into a circular orbit. Without applying any torque(s), the cannonball continues to rotate once a day, but it’s orbit period is now about 91 minutes. It will no longer present the same face each orbit to a viewer on the ground. That’s called “conservation of angular momentum”.
“pups is so wedded to its delusions that it can’t understand that when the cannonball is launched, it retains the rate of rotation it had while sitting in the cannon”
No, I agree entirely. It’s just that the rate of rotation about its own axis that it had while sitting in the cannon was nil. The cannon and ball, prior to launch, are rotating about the Earth’s axis, but not on their own internal axes.
“pups is hopelessly unable to understand that Earth coordinates are not an inertial reference frame, but one which which rotates wrt the stars.”
No, I understand completely. What you just cannot get into your head is that the cannon and ball are rotating about the Earth’s axis, and not on their own. Get it? They are not rotating on their own, internal axes, prior to launch, so the cannonball does not rotate on its own axis after launch.
“The cannonball, sitting in the cannon before launch, is not rotating on its own axis.”
No it is not. It is rotating, the same as everything else, about the center of the earth. As soon as it leaves the cannon however, that rotation is changed to rotation about its own internal axis. Energy is not lost you know. It has to go somewhere.
It’s so funny…
…this discussion has now flip-reversed itself. The “Spinners” are now avidly arguing that the ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis prior to release, and are now explaining why it rotates on its own axis after release.
Even funnier, kiddo:
[KIDDO] A change in orientation does not equal axial rotation.
[BROWN] 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.
[MADHAVI] Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation.
Yes, Willard, you presenting those three quotes as if there is some kind of disagreement or contradiction between them is definitely also funny. I am not sure if it is funnier, but definitely funny.
“now avidly arguing that the ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis prior to release, and are now explaining why it rotates on its own axis after release.”
You’ve heard of conservation of momentum haven’t you?
Please, carry on explaining why the ball on a string rotating on its own axis after release does not mean that it is rotating on its own axis before release. Your fellow “Spinners” need to hear it.
RLH et. al., DREMT doesn’t know or understand conservation of momentum means the cannonball is rotating on its own axis before being fired from a realistic cannon on Earth. You have to allow for that reality. Opinionated DREMT can and does do thought experiments wrongly all day long.
DREMT also doesn’t know cannons these days are rifled to account for the Magnus effect so the shell comes out w/controlled spinning in modern day cannons.
In Newton’s day, when Newton drew the picture, cannon balls were iron & made with windage to the cannon ID so came out spinning randomly. Accuracy didn’t matter as much back then when they were only trying to hit a castle wall or maim enemy soldiers.
There is a lot DREMT doesn’t know and resorts to opinions preying on the innocent.
Here’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation
You really need to up your conceptual analysis instead of your trolling skillz.
RLH said:
“”[DREMT] The cannonball, sitting in the cannon before launch, is not rotating on its own axis.”
[RLH] No it is not. It is rotating, the same as everything else, about the center of the earth.”
Ball4 comes along acting as if RLH agrees with him that the cannonball is rotating on its own axis when sat in the cannon prior to launch, despite the clear statements to the contrary from RLH. Ball4 then talks about cannons, irrelevant information since it is a thought experiment in which the cannon does not induce a spin on the ball’s internal axis when fired. Ball4 then tries to act as if he is “defender of the innocent”. Ball4 says a lot of ridiculous stuff, because he is a troll.
Willard, a change in orientation does not equal axial rotation, by which I mean internal axis rotation.
Think of the ball on a string. The ball is changing orientation whilst it moves, but it is not rotating about its internal (to the ball itself) axis (as Bindidon and the “Soft Spinners” agree). It is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about its internal axis. It is changing orientation, but not rotating on its own axis.
A rotation is a circular movement of an object around a center (or point) of rotation, Kiddo. So as soon as you have a rotation, you do have a change of direction.
The only time you would not have a change of direction with a rotation is when you use a spherical geometry.
“A rotation is a circular movement of an object around a center (or point) of rotation, Kiddo. So as soon as you have a rotation, you do have a change of direction.”
Exactly. So, with the ball on a string, it is rotating about an external axis, hence the orientation of the ball changes. The ball is not rotating about its internal axis, however. Which is the point.
So, a change in orientation does not equal axial rotation (internal axis rotation).
“but it does rotate about an external axis (i.e. it orbits)”
I explained this once already. The cannon ball would *move* in an elliptical path with the earth at one focus (i.e. it orbits). It would not “rotate” about the earth (ie would not move in a circle as if attached to a rotating platform). The cannon ball had a fixed orientation WRT the ‘fixed stars’ before firing, and still maintained a fixed orientation after firing.
The applied torque causes *orbital* angular momentum. Not *spin* angular momentum.
*************************************
The biggest problem with your ‘model’ is that it utterly fails for non-circular orbits.
It is easy to explain the orientation of a cannon ball fired at the right speed to enter a perfectly circular orbit.
* I say the cannon ball orbits, and maintains the same orientation WRT the star (but the cannon ball could be given a bit of spin to stay orientated to the earth).
* You say the cannon ball orbits, and maintains the same orientation with respect to the earth (but the cannon ball could be given a little backspin to stay orientated to the stars)
But in an elliptical orbit? Your model has no answer. Does the same side of the ball stay oriented toward the earth? Does the some side say oriented ‘forward’? What is your default, no-spin solution? Which ever your choose, you will be violating conservation of angular momentum.
Yes, Tim, you “explained” once already about how you think the cannon does produce a torque about the external axis (located at the center of the Earth), and even that the cannonball does move around that axis as a result…but somehow the resulting motion is not a rotation about that external axis! Somehow the resulting motion is just a curvilinear translation in a circle, with the “axis” at the center of this circle (and no longer an “axis”, because there is no rotation!).
Very strange, Tim.
“(Tim admitted upthread that the force from the cannon would create a torque about the external axis, so thats that)”
Already taking what Tim said out of context, and misrepresenting it.
One day later. That didnt take long!
He noted that this torque would NOT create rotation!
The force is thru the cannonballs COM, thus it CANNOT cause rotation (orientational change).
When are you going to learn this?
It would simply give the cannonball translational momentum, and thus orbital angular momentum.
It has all the properties of the MOR.
> with the ball on a string
And that’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo: a ball-on-a-string and a cannonball are not the same thing. They’re not the same kind of system at all. Tim already told you this many times.
You can’t switch from BOS mode to CANNONBALL as you see fit. As Tim regularly reminds you, the analogy breaks down as soon as you’re trying to describe a non-circular path. Tim is being overly generous by comparing your model to epicycles: at least they worked.
I should add CANNONBALL to your Master Argument.
The playground bullying, six against one, continues.
I wonder if these people were bullied when they were younger? Might explain a lot. Maybe this is some sort of “revenge” for them…
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
https://xkcd.com/1357/
You’re opposed to the whole scientific community on this.
Besides, you’re obviously trolling.
Please stop.
“It’s just that the people listening think you’re an asshole, and they’re showing you the door”
Yes, that kind of thing, Willard…plus all the name-calling, etc.
Well, that’s, like, your opinion. I have every right to think differently, and will continue to do so.
“As agreed by Mr Timothy Folkerts, the force from the cannon imparts a torque about the external axis, i.e. the axis the cannonball orbits around. So the cannonball is launched without spin (i.e. no rotation about an internal axis)”
All true.
Then off the rails we go:
“but it does rotate about an external axis (i.e. it orbits). An object that is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about an internal axis, moves as per the ‘moon on the left’, in the below gif:”
Tim never agreed with any of that second part, because it is wrong.
Any method of dishonest debate that can be used, you will use.
The cannonball is launched without spin. That means no rotation wrt the stars. It doesnt get any via gravity. It goes into orbit with no rotation. That is exactly what the moon on the right is doing!
Good. As you should.
“Ball4 comes along acting as if RLH agrees with him that the cannonball is rotating on its own axis when sat in the cannon prior to launch”
This is one of the challenges in any discussions like this. Exactly how precise do we want to be about all details?
* Do we treat the earth as stationary, or rotating once every 23:56 hr?
* Do we treat the earth as stationary, or orbiting every 365.24 days?
* Do we treat the cannon as stationary, or rotating with the earth on top of some giant tower?
Conceptually, the simplest is to imagine a planet like earth, but not orbiting a sun and not rotating on its own axis. And the “cannon” is stationary relative to this stationary planet.
But until everyone agrees on the exact scenario, there will be disagreements about details (which sidetrack from the root issue).
The “strange” thing, DREMT, is that you seem to imagine some giant, invisible platform that gets pushed by the cannon and carries the cannonball along, forcing the cannonball to rotate with the platform. Ain’t no such platform!
There are SO MANY ways to show the errors of your model. You arrogantly refuse to even consider that your knowledge is faulty. We are not bullies; we are the ‘intervention’ trying to break you of a destructive addiction.
The playground has six students that listened in class and passed the test with good physics pointing out one with incorrect physics that didn’t listen in class, continues.
Listen and learn DREMT.
Tim and Ball4 try to justify their behavior as the six continue their incessant twaddle. Guess what? The cannon and ball are not rotating on their own axes whilst sitting there, they are rotating about the Earth’s axis, same as every other part of the Earth. Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis, it is rotating about the Earth’s axis. The ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis, it is rotating about an axis that is external to the ball. The wooden horse on a merry-go-round is not rotating on its own axis, it is rotating about an axis in the center of the merry-go-round. The fired cannonball is not rotating on its own axis, it is rotating about the Earth. The aircraft circumnavigating the planet is not rotating on its own axis, it is rotating about the Earth. The moon is not rotating on its own axis, it is rotating about the Earth. All “regardless of reference frame”.
We’ll add
Green-Eggs-and-Hamming, to the growing list of dishonest debate tactics.
It’s basically (Argument by Assertion)^N
Earlier we saw:
Extreme pot-kettling (re: bullying)
and
Playing the victim card (6 on 1)
The day before saw:
Misrepresentation of opponents argument
Cherry pick of opponents argument
Misrepresentation of physics
Misrepresentation of one’s expertise in physics.
And the one-two punch of
Man-splaining physics to physicists
followed by
Well then ‘I have every right to think differently’
Before that we had a week of
WhataboutBobism
I suppose it’s quite flattering having a stalker, in a way. Shame he’s the biggest hypocrite on the blog, always firing criticisms at others that apply more to himself than they do to them, but there you go. I guess it keeps him busy, even though he knows he will never get a direct response.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
The biggest hypocrite here pretends to be a moderator.
So, not me then. Nobody with a sense of humor would think I was seriously pretending to be a moderator.
pups wrote:
Yes, No and No. If pups knew anything about math, it’s delusions would have disappeared years ago. For example:
W = the Earth’s rotation rate wrt the stars = 23h53m4s
WC = the rate of rotation of the cannon ball
R = the distance between the Earth’s center and the cannonball’s CM
r = the radius of the cannonball
V1 = the instantaneous velocity of the cannonball’s CM
V2 = the velocity of the point of contact at bottom between the two before launch.
V = R * W
V2 = (R – r) * W
WC = (V – V2)/r = [(R*W)-((R-r)*W)]/r = (r/r)*W = W
When the cannonball is launched, those instantaneous velocities do not change without some external torque(s).
Conclusion: The cannonball in orbit rotates at the same rate as the Earth.
“Nobody with a sense of humor” would repeat the same ‘joke’ 47,000 times!
Swanson, have you not been paying attention? Tim agreed that the force from the cannon applies a torque about the axis that is external to the cannonball (the axis located at the center of the Earth). Currently we’re debating whether this torque makes the cannonball rotate about the external axis (thus presenting the same side to the Earth whilst it orbits) since there is no torque to rotate the cannonball about an internal axis…
or…
…if, inexplicably, the torque applied about the external axis does not lead to a rotation about the external axis (despite the ball curving about that axis)…resulting in a curvilinear translation of the ball in a circle, with the “axis” being at the center of this circle, although not really being an “axis” any more as there is no rotation about it.
The Usual Suspects are going with the second option, of course. I take it you agree with them…?
“I suppose its quite flattering having a stalker”
Dont like being ridiculed? Stop saying ridiculous things!
The concept is really quite simple.
“
> Swanson, have you not been paying attention? Tim agreed that the force from the cannon applies a torque about the axis that is external to the cannonball.
See, Kiddo?
You’re doing it again.
And by “it” I am not referring to joking, but to trolling.
You’re not trying to solve any conceptual or physical issue here.
Please stop.
I agree with Tim here, Willard:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-847014
…and I think Swanson is getting bogged down in details which distract from the root issue. Which is, does the cannonball orbit like the MOTL or the MOTR when fired?
I am not trolling.
“Currently were debating whether this torque makes the cannonball rotate about the external axis”
Not an honest one.
If it were honest, perfectly logical arguments like Swanson’s above would not be ignored.
Here’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-847014
Thought experiments are notorious for making people talk past each other. Perfect for trolls who play you-and-him-fight games.
Either you’re here to present a new model of the Earth-Moon system, or you’re trolling.
Which is it?
“Currently were debating whether this torque makes the cannonball rotate about the external axis”
“and I think Swanson is getting bogged down in details which distract from the root issue. Which is, does the cannonball orbit like the MOTL or the MOTR when fired?”
Again, not honest debate. If it were honest, one would pay attention to details like Swanson’s rather than simply declare ‘truth’ that the cannonball moves like MOTL.
If it were honest, one would not ignore the fact that the fired cannonball has identical properties as the MOTR.
I am not here to present any “new model”, and I am not trolling, Willard. I am here to remind people that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is not motion like the “moon on the right”. Rather it is motion like the “moon on the left”. I personally think this is something that used to be understood, but has since been confused/forgotten. That is why “rotation” is synonymous with “revolution”…but the significance of this has been overlooked.
The problem with Swanson’s arguments is that they all start with “”orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion like the MOTR” as a premise. No…this is the whole point of looking at the “Newton’s Cannonball” thought experiment in the first place. We are trying to get at “what is orbital motion?”, not start by assuming it is one way or the other.
And yes, if you want to ignore Earth’s rotation, then simply make his W =0.
Then his eqns are still valid.
V = R * W = 0
V2 = (R r) * W = 0
WC = (V V2)/r = 0
The cannonball is launched without any WC.
It has no rotation.
It is simply translating. Just like MOTR.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
One does not simply remind people of GIF (i.e. an orbit without spin is like the moon-on-the-right) without having a new model of the Earth-Moon system. Your incredulity isn’t strong enough to overthrow known physics. So you’re not reminding people. You’re just trolling.
Please stop trolling.
…and don’t forget, Willard, both sides of this debate are arguing that the cannonball is launched without spin about its own axis. The question is, does the torque about the external axis cause the cannonball to rotate about the external axis, thus moving as per the MOTL?
NATE, I thought we all agree that the Earth is rotating once a day. Thus, one can not the “W” in my equations to zero.
pups wrote:
No, only one side (that’s be mostly you, troll) is offering that non-physical argument. The cannonball rotates about it’s CM, as does the Moon. The location of the axis is defined by the rotation of the free body in space.
Of course, you insist on claiming there are some external axes about which the cannonball or the Moon rotate, which is laughable. You can’t provide any mathematical description of your delusional physics, just a cartoon sketch, which, BTW, doesn’t apply to the cannonball in LEO.
Swanson cannot follow the debate, and vents his frustration at his imaginary friend, “pups”.
> both sides
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
There’s only one real side here.
Moon Dragon cranks will be a side when they’ll come up with a model of the Earth-Moon system that works in whatever physics they fancy.
Swanson.
We can include Earths rotation, but it seems to enable DREMT to exploit it to sow confusion.
I agree with Tim, keep it as a simple-as-possible thought experiment, like Newton’s cannonball cartoon.
Then it should be absolutely clear that as it exits the cannon, the cannonball has translational momentum, mv, but no rotation wrt the stars.
And to anyone not delusional, there is no mechanism for it spontaneously start rotating wrt the stars.
Thus to anyone except delusional people, the cannonball is moving precisely as the MOTR does.
Getting technical, and beyond DREMTS comprehension, BOTH the MOTR and the cannonball have only orbital angular momentum, mvr, which is purely a consequence of having mv momentum perpendicular to a radius, r, from the Earth center.
Having NO spin or spin angular momentum means both cannonball and MOTR have NO rotation wrt the stars.
Having orbital angular momentum is consistent with the cannon having applied a torque wrt the Earth center, and satisfies Newton’s Law.
Do you really not get that this issue transcends our Earth-Moon system, Willard? This is about “orbital motion without axial rotation”. So the issue applies to all orbiting objects. It is just a question of “”is orbital motion without axial rotation” movement like the MOTL or the MOTR?”
Like many, you seem to despise the simplicity of this issue, and long for obfuscation. “You have to produce a mathematical model!”, you all shriek. No, I don’t. This issue is the Great Leveller. Anyone can understand it. Long may that continue, because no matter what side of the issue you ultimately come down on, these long discussions have exposed so much about groupthink in science, and what happens when people challenge authority…also, it has shown how intelligent people can find clever ways to confuse themselves about the simplest things. There is so much value in these discussions, far beyond the simple question “does the moon rotate on its own axis?”
Stop being so short-sighted.
“The problem with Swansons arguments is that they all start with ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ is motion like the MOTR’ as a premise.”
Nope don’t require that premise at all.
Simply observe that motion of the fired cannonball IS exactly the same as motion of MOTR.
Then it cannot spontaneously transform into motion like MOTL.
> It is just a question of “”is orbital motion without axial rotation” movement like the MOTL or the MOTR?”
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo: one does not simply reduce a physic question to what people intuit when they look at a GIF. A GIF, I will remind you, that is taken from the page on spin-orbit locking and is meant to convey this idea:
This idea does not rest on conceptual analysis alone. It rests on current physics. Current physics allows us to model the Moon-Earth system, but also many other systems that involve spin-orbit locking.
And if you claim that the Moon is not spinning, then no, the question is not about your own intuitions.
“You have to produce a mathematical model!”, you all shriek. No, I don’t. This issue is the Great Leveller. Anyone can understand it.”
So rationalizes the poster of many (poor) attempts at technical arguments.
“Long may that continue, because no matter what side of the issue you ultimately come down on, these long discussions have exposed so much about groupthink in science”
So rationalizes someone with no science education.
Groupthink-
300 y is probably long enough to have thoroughly tested the physics of orbital motion. Yeah it seems to work well.
” what happens when people challenge authority…also, it has shown how intelligent people can find clever ways to confuse themselves about the simplest things.”
“I fought the physics law, and the law won.’
Yeah those challenging authority in science AND who have actually succeeded in changing it are those who understood it, and relied upon the work of others!
Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Einstein, Planck, etc.
That’s where you’re wrong, Willard. It has absolutely nothing to do with “what people intuit from a GIF”. You have absolutely no idea where I’m coming from or what I’m trying to do with all this. Everything I say elicits the same response from you…you say I’m wrong, I’m trying this kind of trick, that kind of trick, I should be doing this or that…you’re just endlessly critical. That’s boring. There is really no point responding to you. You have nothing at all constructive to offer. Every comment you make is just, “tear whatever he just said down in whatever way you can”. That’s it. Absolutely blind devotion to “everything Kiddo says must be wrong”.
I will do my best to just ignore your inevitable response to this comment.
That is where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
I have a very good idea idea where you’re coming from:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-818168
You could make a coherent argument, but for that you’d have to do equations.
You don’t do equations.
All you do is trolling.
With the discussion now moving further and further off the original topic, I guess that’s that. Avoid discussion of the torque about the external axis at all costs…the message spreads quickly amongst the “Spinners”…talk about anything but that…and so they do.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo. You’re the one squirming around the main point:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-788773
You really don’t seem to understand what this implies, now, do you?
Unless and until you produce a model, any model, you won’t be able to see by yourself why this is so.
Meanwhile, you are still trolling.
Please stop.
“Avoid discussion of the torque about the external axis at all costs”
Discussed it…a lot…and you fail to get it.
But why are you bringing it up at all?
Do you despise the simplicity of this issue, and long for obfuscation?
Why are you bringing up physics and math when this issue is “the Great Leveller” ?
“Anyone can understand it” you said.
Another discussion is over. Shame.
pups wrote:
pups, you all aren’t my friend. You are, however “imaginary” and have lied about yourself with every post. I’m not a “Trumpian American”, since I really, really don’t like liars. Worse, you are perverting basic science, dictating your distorted reality by asserting your moronic claim(s) without any supporting evidence.
Maybe your next move will be to claim that the Earth is the center of the universe with the Sun orbiting around it and it’s been less than 10,000 years since it was created, etc.
Swanson resorts to "simple, primitive attack mode", flecks of his spittle coating the screen as he takes out all the frustrations of his entire life on an anonymous internet argument winner.
The discussion really is over. Shame.
Kiddo keeps trolling and “wonders” why people get angry. He should stop trolling. There must be something about getting people angry that turns him on.
Willard continues the unpleasantness…
…the discussion really is over. Shame.
Yes, the discussion really is over in favor of the 6 playground students that passed the physics tests. The one whiny kid, that has not passed the tests is obviously envious and resorts to calling the others names rather than hitting the books, listening to the physics teacher, & learning.
“The discussion really is over. Shame.”
Sure it is. Because you are not winning, just whining. You have no sensible answers to the valid arguments people have made.
Now you will come back in a couple of weeks and try again to BAIT people, by dishonestly misrepresenting this discussion as a ‘win’, pretending that you rebutted all arguments, and that it is again ‘settled’ that the moon doesn’t rotate on its axis.
And you wonder why this invites ridicule.
Ball4, that’s no way to talk about Willard.
The discussion really is over. Shame.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Right DREMT 1:28am, no way to talk about Willard, that was your way to talk about the whiner DREMT.
Listen and learn DREMT.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-850372
AMO detrended vs. undetrended
https://tinyurl.com/f394kavk
Care to extend that back to the 1800s?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/amo-1.jpeg
Care to finally stop boring people?
Well as you only show part of the data….
Why 180 month running means? Why not use a proper filter instead. One without all distortions that running means brings?
Actually given the high frequency leak through and the position relative to the data I think that even a 180 running mean is a misnomer.
Got any reason why the USCRN data follows this quarterly seasonal trend?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-840926
Any person highly specialized in spherical trigonometry could observe the Manilius crater on the Moon during 18 months like Tobias Mayer did in 1748/49.
S/he could then study Mayer’s work, see how he processed his observations, and use the same spherical trigonometry functions as Mayer did.
That would be a long, tedious job:
https://www.e-rara.ch/download/pdf/913790?name=IV%20Abhandlung%20%C3%BCber%20die%20Umw%C3%A4lzung%20des%20Monds%20um%20seine%20Axe%20und%20die%20scheinbare%20Beweg
But it would put a nonsensical discussion to an end.
Use all the spherical geometry you want, but Moon is NOT rotating about its axis.
The same spherical geometry can be used on the ball-on-a-string, and it will reveal the ball is NOT rotating about its axis.
JD, doesn’t have a clue about the physics.
Clint R doesn’t have a clue about science. Just protests that he does.
A ball-on-a-string has NOTHING to do with orbits and orbital mechanics. NOTHING at all.
Try telling that to Ball4…
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-846057
As I said, a ball-on-a-string has NOTHING to do with orbits and orbital mechanics. NOTHING at all.
…except where it does, as explained.
There are NO exceptions. A ball-on-a-string has NOTHING to do with orbits and orbital mechanics. NOTHING at all.
…except where it does.
A ball-on-a-string is only relevant to a ball-on-a-string. Nothing else.
…apart from its relevance to orbital motion, as explained.
It has NO RELEVANCE to orbital mechanics AT ALL.
…apart from the relevance it has, as explained.
It has NO relevance at all. None.
…apart from the relevance that it has.
rlh…”The peak death from polio was in 1952, not 1910 as you stated”.
***
Try putting your glasses on before reading the graph. To see this better, go below the graph and pull the date slider on the right to the left till it’s centred on 1953.
It says there was a peak of nearly 8000 deaths in 1910 from about 28,000 cases. In 1955, when the vaccine was introduced, there were under a 1000 deaths (likely a few hundred) from about 35,000 cases. Note that the number of cases was on the decline before the vaccine was introduced.
I know you like to be stubborn but this is serious stuff. I have no interest in winning arguments or being right, I simply want to get at the truth. There are people out there arguing over this with the anti-vaxxers being maligned with no scientific proof being provided to prove them wrong. We need an open dialog on such matters, no myopic, closed-mind pseudo-science.
BTW…I do not consider myself an anti-vaxxer, even though I will be receiving no more vaccines for the flu, or covid. I’ll trust my immune system and do what I can to keep it operating at an optimal level.
You have the proof right in front of you that polio deaths declined from about 8000 in 1910 to a few hundred in 1955 before the vaccine was introduced.
The number of cases rose and fell dramatically after 1910, but the number of deaths after 1910 remained remarkably low. It is blatantly obvious the polio vaccine did nothing except kill a few thousand people when it was introduced initially.
Polio was already on its way out when the vaccine was introduced.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/reported-paralytic-polio-cases-and-deaths-in-the-united-states-since-1910?time=earliest..1955
correction, centre the time slider on 1955.
the link above got messed up for some reason.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/reported-paralytic-polio-cases-and-deaths-in-the-united-states-since-1910
It does give an interesting bar graph showing the number of deaths to the number of cases each year.
As I said, the peak was in 1952, not 1916. Clearly seen on the graph..
Sorry, I meant peak cases not peak deaths.
The introduction of the vaccine reduced the cases quite dramatically. Deaths from it were relatively uncommon throughout the whole period. Life changing effects were much more common.
Try switching to Log instead of Linear and see what that shows.
Polio and COVID aren’t very comparable. Polio isn’t curable. COVID is. Within the last few months, a family friend and his sister contracted COVID. He took Ivermectin; she chose the medical doctor route. He lived. She died. There are several cures: hydroxychloroquine and zinc, Remdesivir, plasma infused with monoclonal antibodies, and Ivermectin. However, there has been so much disinformation, and propaganda disseminated that even doctors’ decisions are affected. The left has been psychopathic with its disinformation.
Also, failed to mention quercetin and zinc which is the same as hydroxychloroquine and zinc. Quercetin and hydroxychloroquine are zinc ionophores. My wife and I took that route. We both lived.
The left was vehemently opposed to the vaccines until Biden was “elected.” Now, vaccines are a wonder. Biden, Nancy, and Fauci have those Big Pharma stock options.
“There are several cures: hydroxychloroquine and zinc, Remdesivir, plasma infused with monoclonal antibodies, and Ivermectin.”
Touting unproven quack ‘cures’ does a lot to hurt your positions.
https://eu.usatoday.com/in-depth/news/health/2021/03/14/covid-19-these-treatments-do-and-dont-work-fight-coronavirus/4551603001/
They aren’t unproven quack cures genius. Many medical professionals are out there touting them, and many of these cures are already published in medical journals and have actual science behind them. Get your head out of your ass.
Sure. Just hope you don’t die from one of the ‘cures’.
I didn’t. I hope you don’t die from one of your vaccines.
I’ve had 2 and haven’t died yet.
I’m reminded of a Monty Python skit.
“I’m not dead yet”
I’ll take my natural immunity over your RNA vaccine.
It is astonishing how many people are vaccine refusniks, because of politics, but will happily put all sorts of other untested things into their bodies.
I’m with ya S.P.A. there is just too much history and sound science and studies on such things like HCQ…that show it does not kill you..but helps thwart a virus. (unless of course one is going to try and take fish tank cleaner or horse meds..then …well i think we all know those outcomes).
I will add that there is still a good deal we don’t know about COVID yet and it’s longer term effects…same with the vax…we just don’t have the data yet. Keep your body and mind healthy…keep a balance and avoid things that will put you into a higher morbidity grouping.
What about the guy who exercised every day, took his vitamins regularly and still died from Covid?
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-fit-and-healthy-man-42-killed-by-coronavirus-regretted-refusing-vaccine-as-sister-issues-misinformation-warning-12373389
1:10000
What about the guy that took the recommended course of vaccines and died anyway?
I’m sure we can find that guy that jumped out of an airplane and survived even though he forgot to bring his parachute.
Its not the normal for most of us.
“He lived. She died. ” Neither one vaccinated I presume?
If they had been, the evidence shows, death would very likely have been avoided.
Sad don’t you think, the idea that her death was avoidable?
“There are several cures: hydroxychloroquine and zinc, Remdesivir, plasma infused with monoclonal antibodies, and Ivermectin. ”
These are treatments, not cures. Some are proven to help, others not.
All have possible side effects and risks, ignored by people promoting them, while the demonstrably low risks of the vaccine are highly exaggerated.
“Remdesivir, plasma infused with monoclonal antibodies”
Why are these experimental interventions perfectly ok, while vaccines are not?
I’m not necessarily against the vaccine, especially for the elderly with comorbidities. But, for the vast majority of the population, vaccination is unnecessary. And, she would have lived if she had taken Ivermectin with her brother.
What about the Guy…….
what about it? you nor I nor anybody knows the genetic differences of ‘the guy’ that died or the guy that survived……for what ever reasons. our DNA is not alike and some who seem totally healthy are totally not when it comes to how the body is prepared to react to an attack. you bet seemingly healthy folk have died… so have healthy folks who did all the right things too. Even the vax itself has killed healthy people…
Nate,
They’re not really untested. When Trump mentioned hydroxychloroquine and zinc, he took that from a Korean study. It had been used against SARS and MERV. So, it wasn’t unproven and untested. Also, in vitro studies have shown that zinc interferes with SARS RNA polymerase transcription, and it was a logical inference that it could work with COVID. Remdesivir works the same way as zinc interfering with the polymerase. Quercetin is a zinc ionophore just like hydroxychloroquine, so it is only logical that it would help zinc interfere with the virus replication. There have been studies in The American Journal of Medicine touting hydroxychloroquine/zinc therapy as effective against COVID, but there is still nothing from the media. There is a recent Israeli study supporting natural immunity better than vaccination, still crickets. It is psychopathic. Agenda is more important than lives.
Right on, Mart!
Why would a Wookiee, an 8-foot-tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of 2-foot-tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I’m a lawyer defending a major record company, and I’m talkin’ about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you’re in that jury room deliberatin’ and conjugatin’ the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.
Vaxxers, beware!
“And, she would have lived if she had taken Ivermectin with her brother.”
You don’t know that. You are just making stuff up.
“Many medical professionals are out there touting them”
Those who are paid well to promote other things they recommend like they are in the USA.
” But, for the vast majority of the population, vaccination is unnecessary.”
So say you. Getting vaccinated is not just for you, its for your community.
In states with high vaccination rates (mine), things are getting back to normal. People feel confident to go out or go to work or school. Unvaccinated kids are less vulnerable and can go back to school.
“And, she would have lived if she had taken Ivermectin with her brother.’
That would be pretty hard to determine.
Regardless of treatment, some people do very well, others don’t. So this is hardly a controlled experiment.
“Also, in vitro studies have shown that zinc interferes with SARS RNA polymerase transcription….”
So Stephen, here you are quoting all sorts of medical science, studies, biotechnology…to advocate for certain treatments.
Yet when it comes to the vaccine which is similarly researched and tested and came from medical science, you distrust it?
That is puzzling.
“You have the proof right in front of you that polio deaths declined from about 8000 in 1910 to a few hundred in 1955 before the vaccine was introduced.”
Deaths had been ~ 1000 for decades, ticked up to averaging 2000/per year from 1948-1954, then dropped by orders of magnitude by the 1960s.
Cases certainly peaked in the early 1950s, before dropping orders of magnitude by the 1960s. Its effect went way beyond deaths, it crippled countless thousands of children. The March of Dimes existed for good reason!
Both deaths and cases fell off a steep cliff with the advent of the vaccine.
As RLH noted, this is easier appreciated using a log scale.
Perhaps a general problem with vaccines, is how slow they are to develop. The faster they could be done {safely} the more chance they
have a large benefit.
Everyone knows their is a trade off, vaccines do cause some harm, and if not develop safely, a potential lot harm.
So, it seems Trump’s vaccines was about as best one could expect from a vaccine. Which doesn’t mean, in future, we can’t much better.
But in past it has been fast enough.
Very similar to my views about NASA- NASA main problem is lack of speed. And NASA seems to doing a lot better in the regard, lately.
But even though NASA worships safety, they are being reckless in terms of Mars exploration. And their slowness isn’t reducing risk.
NASA needs to address the radiation problem with going to Mars, and they need to address the weightless problem with going to Mars.
A speed in in terms trajectory speed, is a pathway to reduce risk.
NASA should be sending stuff to Mars so gets to Mars in 3 months or less.
It worth a lot to be able to do this- in regards to safety.
Worth a lot = billions of dollars.
Offer a 200 million prize, to anyone who can do it.
Cost you NOTHING to ask. And only 200 million dollars if someone actually delivers. If its only 1 million dollars, less likely to change anything. 1/2 billion dollar is probably too much- but would still be worth it.
Of course offering a prize doesn’t take much work.
And don’t give participation trophies.
NASA should have made a rocket fuel depot, they failed, they should still try, even considering how much time they have wasted. And NASA has even tried to make artificial gravity station {which is mind bogglingly, dumb}.
Running means versus RLH’s low pass filters
You just need to compare
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/08/pdo.jpeg
with
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WvVsOJXnbmY9_GoLnzRcXJ7JXHqMPNxJ/view
and look at the so called ‘distortions’…
This low pass filter is like a stone chisel compared with a swiss knife.
It is exactly what I don’t need because I often enough want to look at tiny details, like here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12ulz1gkkkAD4S5Y_sHIufqLeuXZm0HmO/view
Look at the extraordinary finesse of these successive running means, in which several little bumps slowly vanish, and try to imagine what we would see when using RLH’s dumb tool flattening everything away.
Gracias no!
It can’t be 180 month low pass in red as it has WAY too many high frequency elements in it.
As 180 month running mean is the first leg of the CTRM filter all the other legs do are remove the ‘extra’ high frequency distortions that running means bring.
For what it’s worth, characterizing high frequency leakage in a low pass filter as “distortion” is misleading. Distortion usually implies an output signal component that was not in the original signal which is not the case with running means.
See the response curve for Running Means low pass filters.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-844857
Adding in those additional ‘bumps’ in frequency response can be considered distortions when compared to an ‘ideal’ gaussian filter.
“Distortion usually implies an output signal component that was not in the original signal which is not the case with running means.”
Distortions can also be leakage of high frequency components into the output as shown.
I can’t make you use more precise terminology, I’m simply pointing out that it exists.
The relevance is that a failure to use precise terminology consistent with that common to the subject area doesn’t help the credibility of one’s claimed subject matter expertise.
If you don’t consider leakage of high frequency ‘distortions’ I’m not sure what you do consider as such.
That’s like saying 3rd harmonics are not distortion in audio amplifiers.
It is a little ironic (or perhaps moronic), RLH, that what you called ‘signal’ a short time ago (T falling last 6 months, etc, etc) you now call noise or distortion!
You can use different time periods to discuss different things. If you wish to discuss distortions in the output caused by high frequency leak through, then the high frequency bit is important.
If you wish to examine long period, low frequency, climate related things then the low frequency is also important.
An understanding of how filters (high, low and bandpass) work is quite helpful in that regard.
It also helps if you can design high quality filters that don’t produce distortions in the outputs. Or use other ones like S-G or LOWESS if that is your thing.
“This low pass filter is like a stone chisel compared with a swiss knife.”
Running means are like a stone age filter more like.
Do you understand what CTRM (gaussian) filters bring in lower distortions overall? Does introduce some delay to the output but worth it overall.
SavitzkyGolay filters are much used in other disciplines so adding them and running them to the end I consider perfectly acceptable.
AMO
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/amo-1.jpeg
PDO
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/pdo-2.jpeg
Got any reason why the USCRN data follows this quarterly seasonal trend?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-840926
Frequency Response of the Running Average/Means Filter
https://ptolemy.berkeley.edu/eecs20/week12/freqResponseRA.html
“Notice that in all three cases, the frequency response has a lowpass characteristic. A constant component (zero frequency) in the input passes through the filter unattenuated. Certain higher frequencies, such as π /2, are completely eliminated by the filter. However, if the intent was to design a lowpass filter, then we have not done very well. Some of the higher frequencies are attenuated only by a factor of about 1/10 (for the 16 point moving average) or 1/3 (for the four point moving average). We can do much better than that.“
“and look at the so called distortions”
Those distortions are high frequency pass through caused by beating a square wave sampling algorithm with the input data. A problem well known in sampling theorem. It causes rapid changes in the input to appear in the output exactly as shown.
That is why a gaussian sampling methodology, such as CTRM, is much preferred.
USCRN stations – evaluation of hourly data using three different methods (part 1 of 2)
This endless discussion will appear boring to some: it might remember them another one concerning Moon’s spin about its polar axis, or others.
*
1. The discussion is centered around a claim made by RLH that the historically most used technique to evaluate thermometer readings (to build the mean of the TMIN and TMAX temperatures), is inappropriate, because it leads to an overestimation of temperatures when compared with other daily averaging methods (full 24 h average, median of these); therefore, all historical values are to be declared a posteriori invalid.
To give a proof for this, RLH presented, for some (probably very well selected) stations, the difference between the 24 h average (considered pristine) and the two other methods.
But suddenly, RLH silently left those comparisons of ‘average minus mean’ with ‘average minus median’, and decided to show only the former difference. Hmmmh, strange.
*
2. Until now, I have kept on collecting and evaluating all data available in the USCRN hourly data directory
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/hourly02/
This corner contains much more station data than that coming from the commissioned and active stations
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/stations.tsv
but I like to be conciliatory and show below two graphs depicting the horrific difference between all available stations
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FJ9GUEuvlCvbmGAgXVE3NzjwPMWa9ZiS/view
and the 138 commissioned and active stations
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bY_eONbsd7gLX-RnECur4RDpsnaIXWuh/view
A spicy detail nevertheless is that the elimination of over 90 stations led the increase of ‘average minus mean’ resp. the decrease of ‘average minus median’ become even more visible (the fits are steeper).
Thus, the spatial dependency of these two differences is shown even better when considering the currently active stations alone.
Splitting the stuff into quattro stagione, as did RLH, keeps a trial to divert and dissimulate – as long as it is not made for the two differences as formerly discussed.
“The discussion is centered around a claim made by RLH that the historically most used technique to evaluate thermometer readings (to build the mean of the TMIN and TMAX temperatures), is inappropriate”
The USCRN data with its obvious differences between Tmean and Taverage shows this quite clearly.
Differences that are at least partly Latitude dependent (20%-25% ish).
“but I like to be conciliatory and show below two graphs depicting the horrific difference between all available stations”
You say it is not important that Tmean and Taverage are different, and then go on to show that there are differences without attempting to explain why that is.
You can forget about medians as I have said so often as if you have enough data for median that you also have enough data for average which you cannot even do accurately.
“Thus, the spatial dependency of these two differences is shown even better when considering the currently active stations alone.”
What makes the Latitude/spatial differences occur?
USCRN stations – evaluation of hourly data using three different methods (part 2of 2)
3. And what this elimination of over 90 stations did not change at all was the temporal dependency of these two differences:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19KW7q7aBArcOL9qp2aSby4QjlEHCMgPQ/view
Anybody can see that the two differences shown in the graph for the USCRN period (2002-now) behave very differently: one peaks up when the other one is down and vice-versa.
*
Finally, the claim that ‘all stats book’ say the median would be the best averaging method still lacks confirmation by providing for appropriate sources.
What I have read until now is that the median is always the better choice when you have to operate on skewed data.
This is not the case when considering the hourly distributions for either single stations or for all of them:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TFosZhWOev-Xv4DyHx0j5C3XSOffWizw/view
Skewed data looks quite a lot different.
*
4. What remains is that, when you consider the active USCRN stations alltogether, the median is, in all different modi of temperature evaluations, always lower than the 24 h average and the mean of TMIN and TMAX.
This is best visible when looking at the monthly averages of the three hourly modi:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11ZoqOljZDzETkMDzITuirU4E8AuXWh5Z/view
This is very probably the only reason to push the use this median averaging concept, in order to discredit the historical use, since temperature measurement beginning, of the mean of TMIN and TMAX.
If the median had shown on par with that latter mean, RLH very probably wouldn’t have even mentioned it.
That is why in addition to mean, you have standard deviation at 66% and 95th percentile. These tools help evaluate data, particularly when comparing two sources such as climate models vs observations.
Ken
Maybe you finally begin to exactly explain what you have read, and from where you read it.
What you wrote here is named in German ‘Kauderwelsch’, i.e. Gibberish.
Quartile (including 50%, i.e. Median) is a very useful way of assessing data. Care needs to be taken when using ‘standard’ statistics that are used for normal distribution data, as the results may well be ‘off’ compared to quartile data.
And, no, central limit theorem is not recommended to produce normals for auto-correlated data.
Have you ever taken a course in basic statistics?
Bindidon proudly states that he didn’t study statistics. But still he uses them as if he knows what he is talking about.
“And, no, central limit theorem is not recommended to produce normals for auto-correlated data.”
Actually it still applies, it just requires more data, which we certainly have for global average T.
With local variations in it that amount to +/- 2.0c. Thus making all your claims suspect.
In fact it calls into question the whole attempts to remove such stations that exhibit such behavior from the record. Are you suggesting we should remove some of the USCRN ones?
Nate: Until you can explain why Tmean, (Tmin+Tmax)/2, and Taverage (true), on a repeatable station by station basis, are so disparate you cannot claim anything else is correct.
P.S. If you think that data capture 10s of miles apart (at least) at a constant low distance off the ground has any relevance (other than in passing) to the bulk air temperature of the 100,000s of cubic meters of the atmosphere around the globe then you need to do some basic engineering and sampling courses.
“Nate: Until you can explain why Tmean, (Tmin+Tmax)/2, and Taverage (true)”
You keep evading my question, which is key:
Have you shown that this effect has a significant impact on Regional or Global Trends?
No you havent. And until you do this problem is a big red herring!
You are looking for a reason for science to just throw up their hands and say Uncle, we cannot do this.
But you havent found it. But you are still throwing up your hands.
If you are basing your observations of stations which can be as much as +/- 2c repeatably in error on any one day, how can you claim that you know what the rate of change is?
You want to average them all together to produce ‘the answer’ without showing that averaging is the correct methodology. That’s like saying the average elevation gives a meaningful result. It doesn’t.
You also want a measurement at, say, 1.5 meters to faithfully represent the bulk air temperature, ground to TOA. It doesn’t. Nor does sampling at 10s of miles separation on Land only. Oh and lets ignore clouds as they are too difficult to model.
Now you just want to ignore the FACT that individual stations are quite different to the real, true, temperature and claim, “it all doesn’t matter, we know we are correct”.
“can be as much as +/- 2c repeatably in error”
Like those commercials showing amazing before and after diet results on individuals.
Fine print: results not typical.
Have you shown that this effect has a significant impact on Regional or Global Trends?
No?
Then it is red herring.
Again a problem is only a problem if you can show it affects the climate trend, significantly.
T trends are ‘changes in’ temperature. If the same method is used throughout the record, then a typical time-averaged offset of 0.25-0.5, DOES NOT matter.
MarkB showed data that seemed to confirm this.
But feel free to investigate to determine if this really is a problem.
If it truly is significant, then submit a paper on it.
Forget Medians. If you have enough data to create a Median then you also have enough data to replicate the Taverage precisely. As you cannot even do that, then your methodology or calculations are suspect.
The Daily and Monthly USCRN records are accurate. Much more than your failed attempts to re-create them. Until you accept that fact you have nothing.
That doesn’t mean that medians are not what all stats books recommend. Just that in this case the accuracy of Taverage in already rounded Hourly data is not that easy to calculate from 5 min sampled data of Taverages in the way USCRN does.
Unless you are going to claim that Daily and Monthly USCRN are inaccurate of course.
As to which should be recommended, median or mean (or even mode).
https://statistics.laerd.com/statistical-guides/measures-central-tendency-mean-mode-median.php
“The mean has one main disadvantage: it is particularly susceptible to the influence of outliers. These are values that are unusual compared to the rest of the data set by being especially small or large in numerical value.”
“Another time when we usually prefer the median over the mean (or mode) is when our data is skewed (i.e., the frequency distribution for our data is skewed). If we consider the normal distribution – as this is the most frequently assessed in statistics – when the data is perfectly normal, the mean, median and mode are identical. Moreover, they all represent the most typical value in the data set. However, as the data becomes skewed the mean loses its ability to provide the best central location for the data because the skewed data is dragging it away from the typical value. However, the median best retains this position and is not as strongly influenced by the skewed values.”
If you wish me to produce the average daily profiles for USCRN stations I can do so. I have already provided those for the 2 extremes (see previously). They are nothing like sine waves and produce definitely skewed data over a 24 hour period.
Any reasoning as to why the quarterly seasonal USCRN data shows such divergence in Summer and Winter but is less obvious in Spring and Fall?
“Skewed data looks quite a lot different.”
Now run a histogram of those series and show what the actual distributions are. They will not be ‘normal’ distributions at all.
Bindidon: Got any reason why the USCRN data follows this quarterly seasonal trend?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-840926
Thank you for replicating what I did previously
for Fallbrook
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/53151_fallbrook_5-ne.jpeg
and Lewistown
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04140_lewistown_42-wsw.jpeg
Let me add in
Everglades City
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/92826_everglades-city_5-ne.jpeg
Kenai
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/26563_kenai_29-ene.jpeg
Neither of which are ‘normal distributions’ as can be seen from the solar data which is as good as normal as you are likely to get.
binny…”USCRN stations – evaluation of hourly data using three different methods”
…
You can number-crunch the data all you want, it’s like Richard said, it’s cooler this year than last. What that means, no one knows.
“evaluation of hourly data using three different methods”
Incorrect Monthly/Daily/Hourly data as you have been told many, many times already. USCRNs data for Daily and Monthly is accurate. Yours calculated from Hourly is not.
Bindidon: Got any reason why the USCRN data follows this quarterly seasonal trend?
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-840926
rlh…”What about the guy who exercised every day, took his vitamins regularly and still died from Covid?”
***
Where is the scientific proof this guy died from covid? Even though he was fit, was he a smoker? Did he have COPD or any other lung disorder?
People who train as this guy was claimed to train, often work out to a point of exhaustion. In a long sporting career I often ran myself to a point of exhaustion, a very dangerous condition to be in when contracting a virus of any kind. The flu can kill you if you are extremely exhausted.
Speaking of vitamins, was he taking megadoses of vitamin C. Was he aware of the effect in the body of other vitamins like A (two kinds), the B’s, C, D, and especially E? I know people who take vitamins and have no idea what they are doing.
The death of a fit 42 year old is extremely rare for covid. As I pointed out in a previous post, in Sweden, where there are no lockdowns, only 4% of deaths have occurred for people under 60. It’s likely similar in the UK.
Later in my career, while on a 10 mile run with severe hills, while dieting severely to get myself under 200 pounds, I ran myself to a level of exhaustion I had never experienced in my life, even though I had run myself to exhaustion in many a soccer game, with continuous running over 90 minutes. I depleted my system, a seriously dumb things to do.
A common sign of being run down re exercise is getting a cold. You literally run down your immune system. Been there, done that, many a time. Mix in drinking in a bar with friends and not getting sufficient sleep, and you have a recipe for serious illness.
Shortly afterward depleting my system, I contracted a severe panic disorder. I am lucky I did not contract the flu because a serious condition can occur when depleted wherein a virus attacks the heart (pericarditis).
I am not buying this guy died from covid. I think it far more likely he ran himself down via climbing and exercise to the point where his immune system could not handle covid. Also, there is no information as to whether he partied and lost sleep.
I know a 92 year old who has not contracted it even though he has been out and about regularly.
So the guy I referred to didn’t die and its all a hoax. Idiot.
nate…”Deaths had been ~ 1000 for decades, ticked up to averaging 2000/per year from 1948-1954, then dropped by orders of magnitude by the 1960s”.
***
Nate can’t read graphs, little wonder he is an alarmist. It’s blatantly obvious the number of deaths spiked in 2010 to nearly 1000. The rest of the time the number of deaths was no more than a couple of hundred.
Why was no one else suffering from polio other than a few hundred people? Why are we making such a big deal over a vaccine curing polio when there was essentially nothing to cure?
It always went away on its own.
Why do people get so emotional when skepticism is expressed about vaccines? Why can they not supply absolute proof, one to one to one basis, that vaccines kill off viruses?
“It always went away on its own.”
Throughout history Polio has always been a problem. A vaccine is introduced and Polio is reduced to nothing in a few years.
But, of course, it went away all on its own. Sure. It must have been frightened by the vaccine.
No it all went away because all the kids were taking mega doses of Vitamin C, which ‘cured’ them….in the 1970s.
You don’t remember that?
Neither do I.
An orange a day might have helped. : )
rlh…”As I said, the peak was in 1952, not 1916. Clearly seen on the graph.”
***
Which peak are you talking about? I am talking about deaths, the red line, and if you hover the mouse over the red dot representing the year it gives the number of deaths.
1911 – 7130 deaths
1950 – 1904 deaths
1951 – 1551 deaths
1952 – 3145 deaths
1953 – 1450 deaths
1954 – 1368 deaths
1955 – 1043 deaths
Why so many deaths in 1911 and why did the problem resolve on its own? By the time the vaccine was introduced in 1955, the number of deaths, except for 1952, had been on the decline since 1950.
You can’t go by the number of cases because the sources, the US CD.C and the WHO, are notorious for using estimates rather than reported number. There is another graphic showing the difference but, typically, they have started the graphs at 1980.
“Which peak are you talking about?”
As I clearly said I was talki9ng about cases. Deaths were relatively rare the whole time.
Switch the graph to log format which will indicate to you the massive effect that using the vaccine had.
https://imgur.com/aeYmmQC
Tell me (from the above graph) when you think the vaccine was introduced?
” The rest of the time the number of deaths was no more than a couple of hundred.”
False, Gordon.
I not only looked at the graphs in log scale but read off the numbers. You could easily do that.
year deaths
1948 2140
1949 2720
1950 1904
1951 1551
1952 3145
1953 1450
1954 1368
1955 1043
1960 230
1965 16
1970 7
And this ignores the fact that many cases (peak 1952) will result in crippling, like FDR or worse, as a result.
year cases
1952 58,000
1955 29,000
1960 3,000
1965 72
1970 33
RLH
I repeat.
Splitting the stuff into quattro stagione, as did RLH, keeps a trial to divert and dissimulate as long as it is not made for the two differences as formerly discussed.
Your answer:
” Forget Medians. If you have enough data to create a Median then you also have enough data to replicate the Taverage precisely. ”
Me, forget the medians you permanently insisted on during weeks and weeks?
Ha ha.
You keep dodging all the time.
C’mon, RLH, stop keeping cowardly behind the wall, and explain
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bY_eONbsd7gLX-RnECur4RDpsnaIXWuh/view
and
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19KW7q7aBArcOL9qp2aSby4QjlEHCMgPQ/view
*
And that, RLH:
” As you cannot even do that, then your methodology or calculations are suspect.
is a pure lie. Disgusting.
You aren’t even able to prove it, because you cowardly left the USCRN hourly data…
OMG, what a poor guy.
“Me, forget the medians you permanently insisted on during weeks and weeks?”
As you are unable to acknowledge that you cannot calculate daily averages correctly but insist that you are correct and USCRN are wrong, I take all observations from you with a pinch (large) of salt.
“You arent even able to prove it, because you cowardly left the USCRN hourly data”
As I use mostly the sub-hourly data to do daily profiles and accept that USCRN themselves are accurate and use their Daily or Monthly figures when doing other things It is you who are the cowardly one who hides behind the incorrectly calculated Daily from Hourly data to make your incorrect observations.
Do you still not understand that using already rounded data such as Hourly will always cause problems in maths? I assume not. You will just continue on your arrogant way like always.
Ignore the median lines as they are just a distraction. If you have enough data to calculate a median you also have enough data to do an average (which you can’t even do correctly).
Explain why the Tmean line is so variable and is roughly dependent on Latitude. I have asked you that many times and you just duck and drive around it and point out the irrelevant fact that median is just as inaccurate (or even more so) SO WHAT?
The fact is that Tmean is inaccurate. Explain why.
“Splitting the stuff into quattro stagion”
Aka seasons. You know Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter.
Or Spring, Summer, Autumn, Winter of you are not North American.
This Robertson guy is a pure, 100 % liar.
I remember the poliomyelitis situation at the end of the 1960’s in Germany, as this viral infect still was not eradicated.
Every evening, at the end of the TV news, a friendly voice repeated:
” Schluckimpfung ist süß – Kinderlähmung ist grausam. ”
Translated using Google’s tool gives something similar:
” Oral vaccination is cute – polio is cruel. ”
And that was the way to convince even those who are against everything.
The only countries in the world where poliomyelitis is still raging these days are… Pakistan and Afghanistan.
*
But polio isn’t cruel to children only.
I remember a good friend who spent a few weeks in California at the end of the 1950’s. He was 25 years old.
Two months after he came back, he suddenly had to move using an invalid chair, till his life’s end.
Yeah, Robertson. You are really this blog’s most stupid guy.
I have a friend that couldn’t wait to get vaccinated. He even stated that he was anxious for things to get back to normal. He got vaccinated last February, no return to normal. He got the second vaccination, no return to normal. He’s now fully vaccinated, but only leaves his house wearing a mask. He avoids public places as much as possible. He’s more afraid than before.
The hoax is working.
Some people are afraid of clowns.
I have always regarded them as irritating at worst,
but mostly just slightly distracting/annoying.
I was missing the whole point of them, but
it seems the proper task of them is to distract and
fill in the time between the acts of a show.
Reminds me of TV ads- which I find more annoying.
I avoid public places and public transportation-
but it has nothing really to do with the Pandemic.
But I fail to see Pandemic as improving the public
mood. I would hazard guess California could be the worse at
the Pandemic worsening the public “mood”, Dems friends
have been driven fairly mad.
Not sure which is worst the Trump derangement or pandemic.
I think on scale of pathetic, pandemic has won the contest.
How about on the dream shattering scale?
I think Biden wins by far more than a nose.
Biden + pandemic is causing death.
And death is lowest part of the scale, and measuring below
it not worth it.
But I am vaccinated and still plan to get more of them- but
I am not in hurry.
There has been worst political things in history. There was President Grant and the Gold Conspiracy, the plan to get out of it, was to do nothing.
I expect a lot nothing to happen for quite some time.
Though this is a particular bad time for the dumb Chinese govt to start something, and have way too much faith in the dumbness of Chinese govt- so, that would also do the trick.
“The hoax is working.”
By killing even more people day on day.
What State do you live in, Clint? If you live in a state of low vaccination rates, yeah, its not back to normal. Lots of people in the hospital, horribly sick, or dying. Lots of community spread. Thanks to unvaccinated!
Where vaccination rates are very high, things are getting back to more normal, people leave their house and go to work or school with confidence. People wear masks indoors, no big deal. Thank you people for stepping up and caring about others.
RLH and Nate offer examples of how the hoax is working. But the best one was from barry, upthread. He recognized that the seasonal flu was now almost nonexistent. But, instead of realizing the the seasonal flu figures were being included with Covid, to support the hoax, he concluded that the masks were working!
See how they distort reality?
Clint R is a science denying idiot.
See how they distort reality?
Your utterings have nothing to do with reality. Just like a flat earth has nothing to do with it either.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/13/ivermectin-treatment-covid-19-anti-vaxxers-advocates
“But, instead of realizing the the seasonal flu figures were being included with Covid, to support the hoax, he concluded that the masks were working!
See how they distort reality?”
What a shame that your fanciful comment has no supporting evidence. Then you would be demonstrating how to “distort reality.”
Unfortunately all you are doing is fabricating. It’s a coarser form of BS and you are a champion of the practise.
Double unfortunately – that does not make you interesting.
Calling Covid a hoax will get you strung up in places. Rightly so.
barry, here’s the “supporting evidence”:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-836963
Clint R, as always, is wrong.
The ‘supporting evidence’ requires Clint-Gordon extreme conspiratorial thinking.
That aint evidence.
Clint R is the very definition of a modern major troll.
This Monday ENSO update brought to you by Baghdad Bobindidon
https://i.postimg.cc/Ls15FT07/Baghdadidon.jpg
Thanks Eben, for keeping so pretty dumb and pernicious, weiter so!
Just because you are wrong….
… and don’t forget your GSM hobby corner.
’cause our Sun is cranky a bit:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QDIH1i34iyU4cQgkhwoUDYTYAA2Qx-7v/view
“La Nia possibly emerging during the August-October
season and lasting through the 2021-22 winter (~70% chance during November/January).”
Although the meme is not as popular as it once was, most people here should be old enough to know Baghdad Bob – aka – Comical Ali reporting Iraqi victories against Americans now over 20 years ago. Bidendonk persistent denial and attacking of La Nina forecasts strongly reminds me that.
https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/comical-ali-baghdad-bob
Bidendonk has his own version of statistics too. One which thinks there are no seasons on this planet.
https://youtu.be/94VhPH7B0uY?t=92
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
We can compare the anthropogenic climate change costs associated with Hurricane Harvey, with the climate change as these are calculated in a typical IAM. When we examine the IAM constructed by William Nordhaus (an economics Nobel laureate), we find that the anthropogenic costs associated with this one single hurricane are much larger (by a factor of about three) than what Nordhaus predicts with his Dynamic Integrated Climate Change (DICE) model for the whole of the United States for the whole of that year. Note too that this was a year in which there were two other destructive hurricanes, many devastating wildfires, tornadoes and droughts, and many other more local adverse weather events.
This is not a perfect comparison, but the inevitable conclusion seems to be that the current quantifications of the economic costs of climate change, obtained with IAM techniques, vastly underestimate the cost of climate change as it is experienced right now (and therefore also what it predicts about the future). If the current costs of climate change are much higher than what most economists derive from IAMs, the profession needs to reassess its lukewarm support for more aggressive greenhouse gas emission reduction policies (such as much higher carbon taxes).
The second conclusion we can reach when combining attribution science with the economics of hurricanes has to do with equity and justice. Using the attribution conclusion about the amount of rainfall that was generated by anthropogenic climate change during Hurricane Harvey, and hydrological modelling of the flooding that occurred in Houston, we can analyse exactly where flooding happened directly because of climate change.
https://www.economicsobservatory.com/what-are-the-economic-effects-of-extreme-weather-caused-by-climate-change
Oh wow. A continuing of La Nina into a second year (OK so technically it has only drifted back to Neutral but it is still below the center) has had an effect. La Nina is well know to effect Atlantic hurricanes.
Who knew that was going to have some outcomes. Like everybody.
You’re supposed to be a John Christy’s fan, dummy.
Also note that 573 / 1978 is almost 29%.
Idiot.
Will will be weeping in his beer when the Big T takes a nosedive.
Well both PDO and AMO are headed away from where they were when it was hot so anything is possible.
Mind you, there are those on here that say that those oscillations are all co-incidence of random events and are not oscillations at all.
First there would have to be evidence that hurricane Harvey is due to a change in the climate. Never mind what the cause of such alleged climate change might be.
That’s a high bar. There is a continuous record of deadly hurricanes striking Texas Gulf Coast ever since records have been kept, making any claim of the hurricane being due to climate change rather specious. Harvey isn’t the deadliest by a long chalk.
Ken
I will agree with you. It does seem the media (at least NPR) is not getting the correct information to the listening audience.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2018/05/10/610140149/record-heat-in-the-gulf-fueled-hurricane-harveys-deluge
In the article they state: “Portions of the Gulf to the south of the Texas coast were 86 degrees Fahrenheit. That’s several degrees higher than normal and it’s heat that drives big storms.”
Really now is that correct information?
https://www.currentresults.com/Oceans/Temperature/texas-average-water-temperature.php
Average August Gulf water temperatures at these locations:
Galveston Freeport Port Mansfield
86 F 85 F 85 F
I am not sure where the cool August water is that is several degrees colder than the historic averages. Havey would have moved over this normal water temperature.
I do not know where the narrative is coming from that the water was so much warmer than normal at 86 F.
Bindidon: The fact is that Tmean is inaccurate. Explain why.
Every statistic is an attempt to summarize some aspect of a data set into a single number: mean, standard deviation, interquartile range, skewness, kurtosis, FWHM …
You could say that each statistic is ‘inaccurate’ in that it cannot present the full information of the original data. Or you could say that each statistic is ‘completely accurate’ for its own purpose.
In many cases there are several statistics for the same general purpose. Like “central tendency” could be give by mean. mode, median, geometric mean, and many others.
The fact is that until you explain precisely what your purpose is, then there is no way to say to what degree any statistic is “inaccurate”. For instance, if your purpose was to estimate radiation output, then the averaging T^4 would be best.
Frankly, I would think mean daily temperature is a more useful statistic than median daily temperature. And it is easy to imagine scenarios where one might be higher or lower than the other. That does not make one “more accurate” — it just makes them “different”
Except that in the case of USCRN they present the ‘old’ way of doing things, Tmean, and the modern way ‘Taverage’. In 2 simple columns in their published daily series for all to see and use.
In USCRN’s case the Taverage is composed of readings taken every 10 seconds from many separate thermometers which are averaged together and then accumulated into 5 min sub-hourly, then hourly, then daily and finally monthly series.
Unless you know a better way that is.
Field# Name Units
———————————————
…
8 T_DAILY_MEAN Celsius
9 T_DAILY_AVG Celsius
…
8 T_DAILY_MEAN [7 chars] cols 55 — 61
Mean air temperature, in degrees C, calculated using the typical historical approach: (T_DAILY_MAX + T_DAILY_MIN) / 2. See Note F.
9 T_DAILY_AVG [7 chars] cols 63 — 69
Average air temperature, in degrees C. See Note F.
Note F
F. The daily values reported in this dataset are calculated using multiple independent measurements for temperature and precipitation. USCRN/USRCRN stations have multiple co-located temperature sensors that make 10-second independent measurements which are used to produce max/min/avg temperature values at 5-minute intervals.
As usual, Tim barges in without knowing all of the facts and falls flat on his face.
I haven’t followed the discussion in detail. There seems to be some context-specific meaning to some of the names. I am trying to parse what different people are intending.
For instance, I think you are saying “Tmean (defined as daily (Tmax + Tmin)/2) is not an accurate approximation to Taverage (defined as the average of all the modern data with 5-minute intervals).” The implication is that Tmedian (which I think you are defining as the median of all the modern 5-minute intervals) is a more accurate approximation.
I can think of all sorts of reasons that might play a role there as to how well the various calculations track each other. Mostly it depends on how much time is spend near the max and how much time is spend near the min.
The main need for this is (IMHO) to ‘correct’ calculations to accurately compare old data to new data. The “most accurate” (ie most useful; most indicative of the actual ‘typical’ temperature of the day) almost certainly is the average of the rapid data. Since that cannot be done for ‘old data’, then it is important to know how to compare a simple (Tmax+Tmin)/2 to Taverage(5min).
I think that is what you are trying.
“For instance, I think you are saying “Tmean (defined as daily (Tmax + Tmin)/2) is not an accurate approximation to Taverage (defined as the average of all the modern data with 5-minute intervals).” The implication is that Tmedian (which I think you are defining as the median of all the modern 5-minute intervals) is a more accurate approximation.”
No I am not. I am saying that the daily Taverage from USCRN is accurate. All the rest is not.
What is in dispute is why the Taverage-Tmean (i.e. the difference) is as Latitude dependent as it is.
The Tmedian came about because most text books say that unless you know ahead of time the distribution and data then Tmedian is a better choice than Tmean. Turns out that both are inaccurate but in different ways. If it becomes possible to explain how come Tmean is Latitude dependent then it is likely to also explain why Tmedian is also but in an opposite sense.
What has been determined so far is that the Latitude based difference is season specific so Summer and Winter are more ‘bent’ than Spring and Fall(Autumn).
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/latitude-winter.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/latitude-fall.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/latitude-summer.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/latitude-spring.jpg
And then, when you have explained the Latitude differences, then you also have the rest of inaccuracy to explain also. That amounts, by some calculations, to about 2/3 of the difference.
Or 3/4qrs of the difference. 2/3rds is a low estimate.
Don’t worry, Tim. Richard just repeats his silly stuff over and over again. As if posting 584 comments will make him win or something.
He’s been told times and times again that we have the data we got. You should ask him about Nyquist. He’s long on this.
Willard is just being his idiot self. Ignore him. Mind you he even knows precisely what the Unknown is so….
See for yourself, dummy:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-838645
And that’s notwithstanding your latest blunder about AI.
Tell us again what the Unknown is.
Boolean implementations are a combination of NAND or NOR. Idiot.
Acronym Definition
NAND Not And (electronic logic gate)
You said that “N(ot)AND and N(ot)OR are just combinations of the above describe logic,” dummy. That’s untrue for three-valued logic, and the other way around anyway.
Stick to SQL.
And you said you knew the value of the Unknown.
You’re putting words in my mouth, dummy.
I said that “unknown” was one possible interpretation of the NULL value. Whereas you…
But you then said you could compare one NULL with another NULL after being told they both stood for the Unknown.
By your logic we wouldn’t be able to compare T or F with other T’s and F’s, dummy. What then would be the point of evaluating propositions if they all were true, false or undecided in their own way? In logic, an evaluation E is equivalent to any evaluation E. That’s the whole point of a logic.
Have you yet wrapped your mind around the distinction between a universal evaluation and one relative to its agent?
Y’all gotta stop sniffing that dope.
PNP NPN it all has the same result.
All you’re doing now is arguing bits and bytes. Flip flopping like a noisy gate.
No signal in the noise.
Willard: TRUE and FALSE are known values thus can easily be compared to each other. NULL stands in for Unknown which cannot be compared to anything, including another Unknown.
Idiot.
You pretentious twat.
T and F are just symbols. So is U. So T = T, F = F, and U = U. That is, you can interchange any proposition that leads to T, F, or U in you algebra. The only value that your logic has for these propositions are these three. It does not matter how you interpret that. If you don’t have that, you don’t have a logic.
Is that clearer, dummy?
TRUE and FALSE are ideas as well as symbols. The symbols just codify the concepts.
What is Unknown remains Unknown. Regardless of your pathetic attempts to claim otherwise.
For instance, I don’t know what garbage you are going to come up with next. There is a certainty that it will be garbage. But each choice you make means the garbage will be different.
> The symbols just codify the concepts.
Now you’re starting to get it, dummy.
Syntax. Semantics. Learn the difference.
You’re still an idiot. You can compared TRUE with FALSE or TRUE (and vice versa). You can’t compare NULL (or Unknown) with anything. Including Unknown.
If I tell you that there are no tautologies in (many) three valued logics and why, it’s because I know the behavior you presume I don’t to deflect from the porkies you told, dummy.
To evaluate is to compare. As soon as your logic has an identity relation = and a U you’ll end up comparing indeterminate propositions together. (At least as long as your U is, which isn’t always the case.) And the result will always be the same of all of them.
You don’t lose identity just because add a third value.
You are losing all your marbles over very simple points.
Here’s a link to one of the papers I’ve found touching on this topic:
Sampling Biases in Datasets of Historical Mean Air Temperature over Land – Kaicun Wang
That paper is quite old now, it was published, 10 April 2014.
“The measurements of Tmax and Tmin can be made by one visit to the weather station a day. Because of its low cost, the measurements of Tmax and Tmin have been accepted globally and Td1 = (Tmin + Tmax)/2 has become the most common method to calculate the mean surface temperature. For most weather stations, the measurements using this method may be the only data source for historical temperature.”
So accept the inaccuracies and all is well with the world.
Nothing to worry about, pass on by.
Anything in the literature about Latitude dependencies on Tmean?
Wang 2016 uses “daylength”, which is a function of latitude, in their model reconciling Td1 and Td0 statistics. One can find other such efforts by following forward citations of the paper linked above.
So why is ‘daylength’ important? What mechanism is there for it to operate on temperature?
I suppose that it would explain why Winter is much more ‘active’ than Spring or Autumn but not why Summer is almost the same as Winter.
Still missing the all important mechanism. Without that all is just q=guesswork.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-846725
For the seasonal differences in Taverage minus Tmean against Latitude.
Again, there are a couple research groups that have published on reconciling these statistics as one can see by following citations of the paper linked above.
Read them or don’t, that’s up to you.
So tell me oh guru what is it that means that Taverage minus Tmean is Latitude dependent then.
Nothing I have looked at so far has any explanation as to why that should be so or, therefore, as to the reliability of using historic Tmean as a guide to real actual temperatures world wide.
Mark B: Any citations in a paper published in 2014 (7 years ago) can only be even older than that. Got anything more recent than helps?
It has struck me that Cosine weighting is good for area/Longitude calculations as such but not for solar input at Latitude. This varies +/- 23 degrees (or so) with some of the year having no input and other times having 24 hour coverage.
Where is that difference applied to thermometer data on a Latitude/seasonal basis?
I’m specifically suggesting looking at papers which have cited Wang 2014. Google Scholar has provisions for finding forward citations and there are other such tools.
I have looked and can find nothing that suggests that the errors seen in Tmean, (Tmax+Tmin)/2, against Taverage (true) can be explained by Latitude differences let alone the 75% of the errors that occur in addition to that.
Even simple spatial area combinations are suspect with local variations being in the order of +/- 2.0c!
So much for kriging to produce infills when the variations between stations are so great.
This is after all USCRN stations we are discussing with the most accurate thermometer and measuring systems that we have yet to devise.
All other measurements are bound to be worse than that.
So why do Tmean (and Tmedian to keep BL happy) differ so much and so repeatably from the real Taverage?
Scott Adams is doing a fair amount of swearing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kleu0H1TOI
And I am becoming more convinced that hanging Pols from lamp posts is good plan.
I am not saying there might not be a better plan.
Hanging ex pols from lamp post could be even better.
Or bureaucrats and/or ex bureaucrats.
One might ask was helpful when the romans did it.
I don’t think it did much harm.
Now, whole issue is about High Crimes.
Let’s see if I even find definition of High Crime.
I just had to search it, and it’s right on the top:
“A high crime is one that can be done only by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice.”
Which is exactly correct. Which a bit surprising, considering
how it appeared to me, no one seemed know what means.
I would also include, not do, rather than just, do.
Not do, seems like the biggest problem with politicians.
One could say, politicians are suppose to not do, much.
I would say, in general sense that is more or less true.
Now, I have long list of things pols should do, but I don’t want
to bore people with repeating them.
But I wondering if others could make a list?
Now, one might question whether hanging on lamp post is the right
punishment, and how long should a pol rot on the lamp post. They might cause disease or just stink too much.
Now, another aspect of this is what does public regard as justice.
We got:
1: just behavior or treatment.
That works.
But we got “The True Meaning of Justice”
“Not for redemption, but to bring wholeness to the broken”
That sounds quite good, surprisingly, let’s see what they got:
“What comes to your mind when you hear the word justice. Is it the American flag dancing in the wind? A bald eagle flying over the Grand Canyon? Or is it something less symbolic; like the sweet taste of redemption? Getting back what you once lost? Or watching the eyes of a perpetrator as he is sentenced? If I was to ask you to explain justice in one sentence, how fast could you respond? Before this year, I would have responded like this: justice is the attempt to level the responsibility in an equal and fair fashion. With my background, I would be primarily speaking on behalf of the criminal justice system and human rights. However, it wasn’t until this year that my mind was changed.”
Do go on:
{skip thru some stuff:
“The original definition, according to the roots and basis of the word, is a different story. Justice describes the establishment of wholeness where brokenness existed. Biblically, justice was used to bring wholeness to the people and community through goodness and impartiality. Jesus served justice by taking the broken and using them in his travels. By filling the broken with purpose, they received a sense of placement and reassurance. Instead of going for retribution, as a society, we should go for fulfillment and wholeness.”
Ok, anything more?
“This might be a theory, or just a spiritual discovery, but what if we treated justice the same as in this example? What if we stopped seeking revenge and sought-out understanding? The world would be different, at least in my opinion. There would be less bloodshed and more conversing. We are all broken differently. It is the value of justice you attest to that makes you whole. Be the person who asks why in the intent to process rather than attack. Justice is never served until you do a justice to yourself.”
Gosh, that seemed to go off the rails, fast. Sure, it’s our own damn fault.
I suppose being patience is a virtue.
I would say it’s not good {or good idea} to hang Joe Biden from lamp post, as that is too much our own damn fault.
Joe is exactly what you voted for. That not what I am talking about.
Joe could be the perfect President to vote for, for the current situation. Let’s check the boxes.
Do you want a weak president?
Do want Congress to be in more control?
Isn’t he just perfect?
It seems plausible, enough.
But why can’t we have better way to have confidence in the voting process. It’s the 21 century.
That is the sort of stuff that makes hanging pols on lamp post
seem quite reasonable.
Off topic?
Go get your own blog site.
Or go over there and cry with that loony Scott Adams.
No swearing.
Swollen balls- and China detonates 15 skyscrapers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMmo7c-HBFc
The video:
https://www.ebaumsworld.com/videos/demolition-of-15-skyscrapers-in-china/86972562/
Off topic?
Go get your own blog site.
Or go over there and cry with that loony Scott Adams.
dmt…”Go get your own blog site”.
***
gbaikie was here long before you. Unless, of course, you are yet another weenie who changes his nym regularly to avoid ad homs and insults for stupid posts.
stephen…”Polio and COVID aren’t very comparable. Polio isn’t curable”.
***
Dr. Fred Klenner was curing polio using massive doses of vitamin C in the 1940s and 1950s.
https://isom.ca/profile/frederick-klenner/
I await the ad homs from the alarmists.
Gordon Robertson
No ad homs needed.
The study on Covid patients with Vitamin C and Zinc has already been done. The conclusion was there was no benefit.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2776305
Read for yourself. The writers did state that both Zinc and Vitamin C can help some illnesses but they do not seem effective against Covid.
norman…”The study on Covid patients with Vitamin C and Zinc has already been done. The conclusion was there was no benefit”.
***
Norman…will you TRY to comprehend what I have written in the past? Klenner used up to 100 grams of vitamin C whereas this trial used only 8 grams.
The trick with vitamin C is to take a bowel-tolerance dose immediately upon the appearance of symptoms then following it up every 4 hours till the symptoms abate. Some people who use this method refer to them as 30-gram flus, 60-gram flus, etc.
Klenner no doubt used IV so he could up the dosage to 25 grams at a time. There have been cases where patients were infused with over 100 grams at a time re IV.
The people running this experiment are obviously clowns who had no idea how to use the C. They were likely out to disprove it anyway. You don’t give the C 2 to 3 times a day with meals, you give a dose that cause a bowel-intolerance reaction which forces a rush to the toilet. Then you follow it every 4 hours with the same, or higher dosage.
There was no mention of people having to run off to the toilet. In fact, they were described as out-patients.
Nowhere in the study does it mention bowel-tolerance. If a patient is really sick, it could take 12 or more grams to induce a bowel-tolerance reaction.
There are also indications in the study that the researchers were of the opinion that C did not work for the common cold. We are talking here about fraudsters playing with peoples’ lives in order to have a smirk.
If you or anyone else wants to ad hom me, that’s your call. I know it works because I have never had a serious case of the flu since I started using C in this manner. Prior to the C, I would feel symptoms coming on, like a head-achy feeling, fever, etc., and I would often have to get into bed with a couple of Aspirin to sleep off the worst part. Then, feeling well enough to be up and about, I’d move into the secondary phase with runny nose, swollen throat, sneezing, coughing, etc.
No more. The minute I feel anything coming on, I hit myself with about 8 – 10 grams of C and await the call of nature. Within a couple of hours, I’m off to the toilet and it’s not a matter of choice, if you know what I mean.
When that happens I am about ready for another 8 to 10 grams, and I continue that regime every 4 hours. Even when I sleep, I have a glass with the same mix of C sitting by my bed so I can gulp a couple of mouthfuls when I get up to hit the toilet.
Pauling pointed out that it’s not the amount of C you take that is important, it’s maintaining the blood level at a certain level that is important. Giving C 2 to 3 times a day does not accomplish that. Seriously ill people should get it every 4 hours which would give them close to 50 grams per day.
I may feel under 100% for a couple of days but the secondary phase simply does not appear. No sniffling, sneezing, coughing…my lungs are fine. I may get a slightly swollen throat as my body eradicates the infection.
I have likely encountered covid several times since January 2020 but my regimen with C had not failed me.
I think the researchers writing this paper are fraudsters who should be in jail. They have lied all the way through the paper about covid.
Gordon Robertson
Here is a paper that lists some studies done on Vitamin C for Covid.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7553131/
In this article they list some testing that was done (in some it looks like high doses). I clicked on the links to the studies but they did not have any conclusions even though they were finished in October 2020.
I do not see any issues with taking high doses of Vitamin C if you don’t mind the bowel elimination. It seems to have some beneficial properties as an anti-oxidant. You taking it does not seem to harm you so I would not be against it.
I would like to know the actual results of some of the trials done to see if this was effective against Covid.
Gordon Robertson
I use Vitamin C drops, I have been using them for years. I take them during the day. Other than 3 week illness with Covid last year I have not had the flu or colds that most get around me.
Each drop is around 100 mg Vitamin C and I use around 10 a day so I get about a gram of Vitamin C a day. Probably much less than you use but I do not see problems with using it.
Is it possible to take too much vitamin C?
Katherine Zeratsky, R.D., L.D.
While vitamin C (ascorbic acid) is an essential nutrient, it’s possible to have too much of it.
Vitamin C is a water-soluble vitamin that supports normal growth and development and helps your body absorb iron. Because your body doesn’t produce or store vitamin C, it’s important to include vitamin C in your diet. For most people, an orange or a cup of strawberries, chopped red pepper, or broccoli provides enough vitamin C for the day.
For adults, the recommended daily amount for vitamin C is 65 to 90 milligrams (mg) a day, and the upper limit is 2,000 mg a day. Although too much dietary vitamin C is unlikely to be harmful, megadoses of vitamin C supplements might cause:
Diarrhea
Nausea
Vomiting
Heartburn
Abdominal cramps
Headache
Insomnia
Remember, for most people, a healthy diet provides an adequate amount of vitamin C.”
I think we can add:
delusions
reality denialism
extreme conspiratorial ideation
loss of ability to read graphs
to the list.
: )
Gordon Robertson
Here is a study of high dose vitamin C. You can read through it to see how actually intelligent researchers really are. They do think about what they are doing and trying to achieve. You may not think of such people as clowns or simpletons if you take the time to read through the paper.
https://annalsofintensivecare.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s13613-020-00792-3
norman…again, they applied the C incorrectly.
“HDIVC group received 12 g of vitamin C/50 ml every 12 h for 7 days at a rate of 12 ml/hour…”
If those patients were critically ill, they should have given them 100 gram doses at one time, not a drip at a time.
12ml/hr is simply not enough. They needed 10 grams or more an hour.
stephen…”Polio and COVID aren’t very comparable. Polio isn’t curable”.
***
Dr. Fred Klenner was curing polio using massive doses of vitamin C in the 1940s and 1950s.
I await the ad homs from the alarmists.
binny…”I remember the poliomyelitis situation at the end of the 1960s in Germany, as this viral infect still was not eradicated”.
***
I was never vaccinated for polio…never got it. You can tell by the number of deaths in a population like the US that it was not a serious threat, just like covid. In fact, covid is far more of a threat than polio ever was except for 1911.
Here is proof from a German virologist that polio was never properly identified and that the same symptoms were later re-branded as multiple schlerosis, flaccid acute paralysis, aseptic meningitis etc. Polio, in fact, is still with us, hidden under other names.
P. 2 of 4
https://wissenschafftplus.de/uploads/article/Dismantling-the-Virus-Theory.pdf
“In 1949, Enders announced that he had managed to cultivate and grow the alleged polio virus in vitro on various tissues. The American expert opinion believed everything immediately. What Enders did was to add fluids from patients with poliomyelitis to tissue cultures which he claimed to have had sterilized, then he alleged that the cells were dying because of the virus, that the virus was replicating in this way and that a vaccine could be harvested from the respective culture. At that time, summer polio epidemics (polio = flaccid paralysis) were very frequent during summer and they were believed to be caused by polio viruses. A vaccine was to help eradicate the alleged virus. After the polio vaccine was introduced, the symptoms were then re-diagnosed among other things as multiple sclerosis, flaccid acute paralysis, aseptic meningitis etc. and later polio was claimed to have been eradicated”.
Lanka has convinced two German courts that the same error re presuming cells introduced into a clean culture killed those cells.
You noted that most polio deaths/infections these days are in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Two of the filthiest countries in the world with extremely high rates of poverty.
I have read several accounts from US soldiers stationed in outposts in Afghanistan, of how disgusted they felt when Afghani soldiers would simply drop there drawers and defecate on the ground. Then they’d wipe their butts with one hand.
Gordon Robertson
I read your stupid article written by lunatic Lanka and you ignored my response. You ignore things when you have no answer and pretend it does not exist. Strange fellow you are. You believe liars and make them heroes but the good logical researchers looking for truth you brand as phonies and liars. You live in a very strange reality of your own design.
Lanka claimed that polio was re-diagnosed as other maladies but he offers zero evidence for this claim. He also claimed that bacteria grew phages (bacteria killers) but he offered NO EVIDENCE for his stupid bizarre claims. How is he a scientist. He makes claims with no evidence. That is opposite of science.
I will ask you to explain (you will ignore it again as is normal for you):. You support the idiot claims by Lanka that measles is not caused by a virus. Again, if not a real virus, why did a weakened form of the virus injected into people, end the disease? You will not explain it. I think Lanka owes the challenger $100,000. He can hide behind German Courts to protect him but he is so wrong.
norman…”You support the idiot claims by Lanka that measles is not caused by a virus. Again, if not a real virus, why did a weakened form of the virus injected into people, end the disease? You will not explain it. I think Lanka owes the challenger $100,000. He can hide behind German Courts to protect him but he is so wrong”.
***
The statement stands on its own as to what a raving idiot you can be. The court that ruled in Lanka’s favour was German Supreme Court. The expert called by the court to testify corroborated Lanka’s claims.
Lanka explains himself clearly to anyone with a scientific background. To help win his case in the German court, he had an independent study performed to prove that the method still being used to claim viruses, covid as well, is fraudulent. Lanka is currently working on another legal case to charge these fraudsters with criminal negligence.
The viral theories are all based on so-called clean cells being infected and killed by an unidentified agent, presumed to be a virus. That has been accepted as truth. Lanka has proved what other scientists should have noticed long ago, that the clean cells are dying due to the pre-treatment they receive in the lab.
For some hair-brained reason. the clean cells are pre-starved to make them more amenable to infection. Why??? That’s as ridiculous as the treatment of specimens in one HIV test which have to be diluted 400 times, otherwise everyone would test positive for HIV.
The cells will die anyway if left un-nourished in a petri dish but these poor critters are starved intentionally. Doh!!! If that’s not bad enough, they are treated with anti-biotics to prevent bacterial infection. The pre-starving and the antibiotics kill the cells then the cell death is blamed on an unidentified infectious agent.
This is about as stupid as the scientist who yells, “jump”!!! at a frog, then measures the height the frog jumps. He continues to cut of one of the frog’s legs, one at a time, and yelling, “jump”!!! noting that the frog jumps to a lower level each time. Finally, he cuts off the last leg and concludes that the frog has gone deaf, because it refuses to jump.
Alarmist climate scientists and covid health authorities fall into the same ‘stupid’ category.
The German courts were not as naive and/or stupid as every researcher who has used that method over the decades, even for HIV. They saw through the stupidity and sided with Lanka. Question is, why was Lanka the only scientist smart enough to see that, or to bother checking into the history of viruses to show the outright corruption in the field?
Gordon Robertson
You are just lying in your post. The Courts did not side with Lanka that he was correct about the measles virus. They only sided with his contest. They decided he could declare what constituted evidence. Since he is a liar and a conman he did not pay what he owed. He is an awful human that lies constantly to feed his own ego and get the “weaklings” killed off. Nothing scientific or good about Lanka. Bad to the bone.
Where did you hear that they malnourish cells and that was what kills them? From the idiot Lanka? Probably. I am sure the actual tests are duplicate cell lines. One given the virus and one not. The one with the virus dies the other does not. Lanka just lies all the time but you believe this most dishonest con-artist.
You call me an idiot but you are too stupid to see the lies he feeds you. You eat up his garbage like good food. Does he support even one of his stupid claims you believe or just makes them up for gullible stupid people like you.
Lanka is not smart, just a liar and ego maniac. Why do you think he is go great? What evidence does he give you that you find valid?
norman’s wife…good grief, there are two of you. Unthinkable. Birds of a feather!!!
Your ad homs and insults of a qualified scientist reveal the idiocy that is being passed off as science these days.
The courts definitely sided with Lanka, his case stood on the proof he offered. Why should he pay anything when the courts agreed he was right and the plaintiff clearly wrong.
It goes deeper. The idiot who brought the charges thinks much like you and Norman. He thought he could produce any old trash representing modern thinking about viruses and collect the money. The courts disagreed, ergo Lanka is right and you and Norman are wrong. Then again, anyone around here with a lick of sense knows Norman is a conspiracy theorist.
In essence, the proof provided by the plaintiff, which represents modern viral theory, was debunked by the German court. Their appointed expert sided with Lanka. agreeing that the papers presented as proof held no proof. Now, we need to get the same result against the fraudsters behind covid theory.
Gordon Robertson
Here is the actual case that you are stating incorrectly.
https://africacheck.org/fact-checks/fbchecks/no-german-supreme-court-didnt-rule-measles-doesnt-exist
Basically you are not getting the correct story on the Lanka case.
Now can you answer the question or will you continue to pretend it is not being asked.
Question for you to answer: If measles is not caused by a virus, then how does a weakened form of a “non-existent” virus create a successful vaccine that all but eliminates the disease?
I am still waiting for you to explain that one. You have ignored it every time I ask it.
norman…”Here is the actual case that you are stating incorrectly”.
***
The politically-correct whiners at your link confirm what Lanka has claimed…
“The judges said their decision was purely a legal judgement and did not make any statement on the existence or nonexistence of the measles virus.
The judges ruled according to other facts, such as the wording of Lankas offer which stated that the prize money would only be paid when a scientific publication is presented in which the existence of the measles virus is not only asserted, but also proven and, among other things, its size is determined.
The would-be winner, Dr David Bardens, had submitted six different papers, none of which alone fit all of Lankas requirements”.
***
They admitted that none of the papers submitted met Lanka’s criterion, that “…the existence of the measles virus is not only asserted, but also proven and, among other things, its size is determined.
Bardens did not prove his point and he submitted the best of the papers available to prove a measles virus exists.
Lanka has never claimed measles does not exist or even that a measles virus does not exist. He wants to see scientific proof that a measles virus exists and thus far no one has offered such evidence.
Hey, Normie, want a quick 100,000 Euros? Take the evidence to Lanka and you’re a lot wealthier. You and your misses call Lanka a liar…prove it.
Or, you could go in another direction. Give Lanka credit for his academic standing, his experience, and his intelligence in being able to offer 100,000 Euros for proof the measles virus exists and having no one able to prove it.
lori…”Where did you hear that they malnourish cells and that was what kills them? From the idiot Lanka?”
***
Of course. He had an independent lab confirm that as a submission to the court. He gleaned that information from his research into viruses but he was smart enough, possibly after advice from a lawyer, to get an independent audit.
BTW, Lori, I have no beef with you or Norman. Norman and I get into it, hopefully with more humour than spite, but that does not extend to you. I mean no disrespect.
Lanka is no dummy. He has a degree in microbiology and he discovered the first virus in the ocean as a student. That spurred him on to study virology. Unfortunately, for modern virology, he had a penchant for history and he has uncovered information that will be the undoing of the modern theory, if there is any justice.
I am sure you and Norman would have called Barry Marshall a liar when he first announced that stomach ulcers are caused by a bacteria that can survive in stomach acid. Many in the scientific community expressed such feelings and the editor who rejected his paper on h.pylori claimed it was one of the ten worst papers he had ever encountered.
Marshall was forced to make himself very ill by drinking a concoction containing h. pylori. When he developed the same symptoms as people with stomach ulcers and cured himself using antibiotics, the idiots were forced to acknowledge the truth he spoke. He was awarded a Nobel for his effort.
Lanka is currently preparing a case against covid fraudsters and so is Reiner Fuellmich, a German lawyer who has taken on Volkswagen and the Deutsch bank and won. He calls those corporations criminals and claims a similar criminal element is committing crimes against humanity with their current lockdowns over covid propaganda.
A former Pfizer principal researcher is claiming governments are lying to us. That is blatantly obvious to me.
What is obvious to all of us (with a few minor exceptions) is that you do not operate in the same world as the rest of us but occupy one where conspiracies theories and similar are the ‘only way’.
Gordon Robertson
My question is scientific proof. You do not have to see something to infer its existence (like the electron). How it causes changes in other things qualifies as scientific proof.
The fact that a weakened version of the measles virus proves they have isolated it (despite claims contrary) and the fact that this weakened version nearly eliminated the disease is valid proof that measles virus exists and has been isolated.
I also accept the many EM images of measles to further prove that such a virus exists.
https://www.pnas.org/content/108/44/18085
https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-a-vaccine-denier-20150320-column.html
MARCH 20, 2015
“A vaccine denier bet $100,000 the measles virus doesnt exist. He lost.”
“Stefan Lanka is a German biologist with a long history of pseudoscientific outbursts, including a denial that the human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV, exists at all.
In November 2011 he put his money where his mouth is by offering 100,000 euros (about $106,000) to anyone who could prove that the measles virus exists. His position is that the disease is a psychosomatic illness caused by traumatic separations.
The challenge was taken up by David Bardens, a German doctor who compiled evidence from medical journals proving the diseases viral cause. When Lanka rejected the evidence, Bardens sued. Last week a German court found Bardens evidence persuasive and ordered Lanka to pay. He says hell appeal.”
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE
14/9/2021
Australian BOM continues to blacklist NASA from their 8 combined models of
International climate model outlooks
They were removed after the 19/1/2021 and presumably will be blacklisted by BOM until they bring their findings into line with approved climate change models like NOAA, JMA NAD UKMO.
NASA were predicting a much longer and stronger La Nina.
This enables BOM to continue using a forecasting ensemble with models that produce warmer outcomes.
Arctic sea Ice made a brave attempt to get to 11th lowest but has run out of puff.
Cooler temperatures [still above average] persist around the globe with sea temperatures being relatively neutral for large swathes.
Warming seas had been a big contributor to warmer air temperatures.
The moderate fall in temps for this year combined with a weak La Nina in the offing suggests temeraures may actually continue to fall or at least stay around there current UHA levels.
Currently equal 6th warmest year it may yet spiral down to 9th highest which would be an amazing global cooling for 1 year.
Are you testing out a plot for a novella with the ENSO model story? How about a bit where an intrepid investigator discovers the truth of BoM blacklisting NASA ENSO forecasts after chancing upon a link dropped on an obscure climate blog by a user called ‘angech’?
I don’t know what BOM is blocking or not but they are cranking pretty good Nina forecast,
If only Bidendork looked this one up he wouldn’t look like Comical Ali
Globull warmin ate my link
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/model-summary/archive/20210914.nino_summary_4.png
It does that.
Yep, BoM has given a 50% chance of la Nina forming during SH Spring, where prior to this latest update they had odds on neutral up to December.
JMA still predict neutral through to December:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/outlook.html
And NOAA have firmed up their prediction that neutral will turn to la Nina in the next few months.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Note: BoM definition for la Nina relies on NINO3.4 SSTs remaining at -0.8 C below normal, NOAA -0.5 for the same region, and JMA -0.5 for the NINO3 region, over a multi-month period.
https://www.severe-weather.eu/global-weather/enso-la-nina-watch-autumn-winter-2021-2022-usa-europe-fa/
“La Nina is returning for Winter 2021/2022, with a watch now issued for the ENSO region, as we head towards the next weather seasons”
SOI for Aug 2021
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/soi.jpeg
Santa could be bringing you your favourite present, JLH!
rlh…”So the guy I referred to didnt die and its all a hoax. Idiot”.
***
You’re a nasty, little man, Richard, but I forgive you. Anyone who believes the Moon rotates on its axis once per orbit, simply because NASA says it does, especially after irrefutable mathematical evidence is supplied to him to the contrary, needs help.
I spent a lot of time explaining to you what happens to athletes who drive themselves too hard. They reach exhaustion, their immunity is compromised, and a viral attack can go so far as to infect the heart muscle. That usually means a heart transplant.
I even gave an example from my own life where driving myself to exhaustion caused a major life change as I developed a panic disorder, very similar to PTSD.
A woman climbing Everest, after descending to just above the South Col at 8000 metres, sat down and died from exhaustion.
26 people have died on Everest from exhaustion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannelore_Schmatz
You will likely claim it is not the same thing but you have likely never pushed yourself to a state of absolute exhaustion. Scott Fischer, a very experienced high altitude mountaineer sat down and died near the top. He had been taking antibiotics for an infection and should not have been up there.
I am only claiming that the 42 year old who died in the UK was an outlier and there is no information supplied as to his condition before becoming infected with covid. It is far more likely, to me, that he was depleted when the virus struck. That’s not the same thing as a 42 year old in an optimal state of health dying from covid.
The data shows that is simply not happening.
What “data” are you referring to that show “it is simply not happening?”
It is data that exists entirely in your imagination.
Here is a news article about young, otherwise healthy people dying of COVID.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wrecked-lives-families-young-adults-died-covid-19/story?id=74148061
They are a small, and not non-existent, percentage.
Incredulity was never a reliable barometer of truth, yet you rely on your own.
No doubt you’ll refrain from waffling and just link us up to that “data” you just referred to.
In 3, 2….
“Anyone who believes the Moon rotates on its axis once per orbit, simply because NASA says it does”
You are a charlatan and a liar. I do not think so just because NASA says so. I think it because it is the only explanation for what we see. Now go off and play with your fantasies.
RLH has really lost it. All he can do is insult. He has NO science.
The ball-on-a-string beats him every time. But, he can’t learn so he will troll here indefinitely, making the same mistakes over and over, believing he can change reality.
He’s insane.
A ball-on-a-string has NOTHING to do with orbits or orbital mechanics. NOTHING at all.
Methinks the RLH doth protest too much…
Methinks that Clint R is a flat earther.
With the issue settled that the moon does not rotate on its own axis, it is time to move on from petty squabbling.
You just think that by asserting something to be true makes it so. You can’t and it isn’t.
No argument by assertion here. Careful, considered arguments made over the last three years have settled the issue. All I do now is report the settled status.
“The issue settled”
You have ‘every right to think differently’ than science.
My prediction came true early:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-848707
Perhaps it would be useful for you to look to Larry Elder as role model here:
“Let’s be gracious in defeat”
All I am doing right now is to report the settled status.
“All I am doing right now is to report the settled status.”
Settled in your mind maybe. But in no-one else’s. They all think that you are wrong. Correctly.
You just think that by asserting something to be true makes it so. You can’t and it isn’t.
Repeating what other have said but in a different context doesn’t make you correct either.
I know. The fact that I am correct makes me correct.
pups wrote:
Calm down, Swanson. You are not even formatting your comments properly you are so enraged.
Quit your whining DREMT with the issue long settled that the moon does not rotate on its own axis as observed from the moon, it is time to move on from your petty squabbling.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-850372
“Settled in your mind maybe. ”
I agree, this seems accurate.
Given DREMTs earlier statements that “I think differently to you”, implies that indeed, it is settled in ‘his mind’ but not in other people’s.
Others have “a right to think differently to you”.
And to be really accurate, DREMT thinks differently than science on this issue.
#2
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-850372
DREMT complains of schoolyard bullying, but here he is exhibiting behavior I haven’t seen since 5th grade.
The whiner-bully kid who never ‘lost’, because he always said the other guy stepped out of bounds or whatever. If it was obvious he was losing he would scream that it was unfair, and depart the scene.
DREMT is that kid, who never grew up.
#3
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-850372
So it sounds like ‘i have right to think differently’ is a right that only you have.
Others not so much. They just need to fall in line withvyour thinking, because it’s ya know, settled.
#4
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-850372
#5 DREMT is wrong.
Down-thread you go…
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-850372
ball4…”(S-B) is based on the radiation from a platinum filament wire
Gordon, astute top post commenters are talking about earthen atm. gases on this blog. Platinum filament wires do not inhabit our atm.”
***
Unfortunately, the 33C warming claimed for the GHE is based on the S-B equation, not Planck’s equation. However, I agree that the platinum filament wire used by Tyndall as the basis of the S-B equation (T^4 relationship) has no application at terrestrial temperatures. G&T have pointed out that the T^4 relationship does not apply at such low temperatures.
After harping on you and other alarmists that EM is not heat you seem to have finally grasped that truth. Now if you could just grasp that heat is energy and not the measure of itself you claim it to be.
Would be nice if Swannie and Norman could get it that heat cannot be transferred cold to hot by its own means. That is asking a bit too much.
Can’t make a silk purse from a sow’s ear.
“heat cannot be transferred cold to hot by its own means”
As no-one is claiming that I call ‘straw man’. What is claimed is that an insulated body cools slower than an uninsulated one.
Gordon Robertson
I have not claimed Heat can transfer from cold to hot! I am certain E. Swanson has not made such a claim either. Based upon your definition of heat it cannot be transferred anyway in a vacuum since your claim is mass is required.
But the current view of heat is energy in transfer, a quantity. How much energy is transferred from one object to another is generally what is called heat (though definitions of the term vary).
Energy transfers in both directions (also can be seen in collisions between a higher and lower energy objects).
Heat transfer is the NET of that energy exchange. The warmer a cold object is relative to a hot object, the more energy the cold object will transfer to the hotter one. But since heat is NET energy the Hot object will transfer more energy to the cold. The NET energy is always from a hot object to a cold one.
“It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.”
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html#c1
Whoever the genius was that came up with the idea hotter object is absorbing the radiation (watts) from the cold one should travel to the Bizarro Planet to pick up his Nobel Prize,
Better yet – The peon acolytes who keep retyping it should carry him all the way there on their shoulders.
As I don’t think anyone is claiming I call ‘straw man’. What has been claimed as far as I know is that an insulated body cools at a slower rate than an uninsulated one.
Oh that’s good!
Means that Rudolf Clausius will pick up a posteriori a Nobel Prize!
Because that is exactly what he wrote in… 1887.
Eben
Why do you think a hot object is unable to absorb radiant energy from a colder one? What process do you believe prevents this? Every physics textbook on heat transfer accepts this as a reality. You, for some reason, think it does not take place. What evidence do you have to support your belief or is it just a stubborn blind belief and evidence will not change your belief?
Consider a hot object and a colder one in a closed system (highly insulated so the only significant interaction is with the two objects). The objects are separated by a vacuum so only radiant energy transfer is significant.
Now the hot object and the colder object both radiate energy from their surface (do you accept that point). Heat transfer is from the hot to cold until they both reach the same temperature. Now the temperature does not change, why? They are both radiating energy. That would be a loss so they should cool. but they each radiate away and receive energy from each other so there is no heat loss (no temperature change either way).
If they both radiate and receive energy when at the same temperature, what process do you propose that would stop this process if one was cooler than the other? What logic do you use that would stop the hot plate from receiving energy from the cold plate when it is just a few degrees cooler but it receives it all when at the same temperature?
The established (used in all engineering manuals related to heat transfer) equation states clearly that the energy from the cold object is received by the hot one. The total heat transfer is the NET between what is emitted by the hot surface minus what it gains from the colder one.
Not sure what physics you are using. Real physics uses this.
q = ε σ (Th4 – Tc4) Ah
Eben
You will have to go to this link to see the equation.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/radiation-heat-transfer-d_431.html
Norman, people that don’t understand physics often make the same mistakes you do. That equation is invalid. A simple example can easily demonstrate why:
A sphere at 400K, with surface area of 1 square meter, is contained within a larger sphere. The inner sphere is emitting 1452 W/m^2. What is the temperature of the larger sphere?
“That equation is invalid.”
That eqn. is the first law of thermodynamics & Clint R calls 1LOT invalid. Way to go Clint, you are living up to all my expectations.
Gordon 10:47pm writes EMR is heat: “heat cannot be transferred cold to hot by its own means.”
G&T, not being atm. thermodynamics graduates, also claimed EMR is heat: “radiative heat transfer clearly dominates over the other forms of heat transfer” so Gordon, like others, is very confused by G&T out of their depth writing a sometimes faulty paper wherein a gas does not have “anomalous heat transport properties.”
EMR is not heat, Gordon, despite all your’s & G&T writing & harping to the contrary. Yes, heat is energy and energy (in form of EMR) can transfer both ways between objects in view of each other in a vacuum.
Temperature is also not heat Gordon.
Heat is a measure of the object’s constituent particle total kinetic energy.
Kinetic temperature is indicated by thermometer as an object’s constituent particle avg. kinetic energy.
“What is the temperature of the larger sphere?”
That has got to be about the most ill-posed physics question I have ever seen!
* What is the inner radius of the larger sphere?
* What is the outer radius?
* What is outside the larger sphere?
* Is there any power source or sink besides the 1452 W/m^2 from the inner sphere?
* Is 1452 W/m^2 the net emission? Or is it simply sigma T^4 for the inner sphere?
* Is there any atmosphere between the inner and outer? Or maybe they are touching?
* Is the outer sphere also a blackbody?
* What is the thermal conductivity of the outer sphere.
I suspect in your mind you had some assumptions. But we are not psychic and can’t know what is going on in your mind.
The photons energy is directly proportional to the radiation frequency , or- is inversely proportional to the wavelength.
In order to raise the electron in the atom into a higher energy orbit i.e increase the temperature = you need a photon to hit it with the higher energy than it currently has in order to do that,
The object at lower temperature emits lower wavelength radiation , the photons emitted by it do not carry the energy high enough to knock electrons of atoms at higher temperature object in to higher orbit , so it cannot be absorbed by it ,
You cannot add up fluxes , you cannot add up temperatures and you cannot add up radiation from cooler object to a warmer one.
If you could , you could also warm up a small object at higher temperature even warmer by surrounding it by a very large object at a lower temperature , not to mention the whole universe would actually run backwards and back into the Big Bang.
Or you you can go with something some guy who thought the Sun was a big lump of burning coal wrote 200 hundred years ago, just like Bin Der Dong does
“In order to raise the electron in the atom into a higher energy orbit i.e increase the temperature = you need a photon to hit it with (that) higher energy”
Sure Eben, but earthen air is constituted of molecules. In Earth troposphere, there is not nearly enough (about 100x too little) photonic energy (i.e. not enough temperature) to raise a base level air molecule electron to a higher energy level.
So, Eben, how does that tropospheric air molecule actually absorb a solar or terrestrial photon as reported by Dr. Spencer?
Oh, and: 1 flux plus 1 flux = 2 fluxes. There, I just added fluxes. Example: One ice cube flux + one ice cube flux = 600/2m^2 of flux.
Norman has “left the building”.
Ball4 doesn’t seem to even understand the issue.
And Folkerts inadvertently reveals why the invalid equation is invalid.
The idiots continue to amuse us.
“Oh, and: 1 flux plus 1 flux = 2 fluxes. There, I just added fluxes. Example: One ice cube flux + one ice cube flux = 600/2m^2 of flux.”
—————————————————-
Keep adding your ice cubes and their fluxes , build a nice big hollow sphere out of them , place a cup of water in the middle of it , wait for all the fluxes start to boil the water , call me and let me know when it does
Sphere of 500 ice cubes = 150,000W/500m^2 flux in Eben’s big hollow sphere still will not boil water. Eben will be waiting forever for the call.
Clint R
Your example does NOT invalidate a valid physics equation. Your ignorance of science is all you demonstrate. I try and think of how stupid the human mind really is and you come along and demonstrate a total lack of logic or critical thinking skills. I used to be annoyed by your stupid posts. Now is is just amazing how dumb you are. Kind of interesting really.
The equation refers to how much Heat an object will transfer. It does not calculate how hot any object will get, it will calculate how much energy a surface transfers. That is all this equation is used for.
Other equations will work to determine the temperature of the larger sphere not this one. So your proof a good physics equation is invalid is really stupid.
The equation will work if you know the temperature of the outer sphere. It will not matter how big it is since it will always have a view factor of 1 for the inner sphere.
Eben says: “In order to raise the electron in the atom into a higher energy orbit i.e increase the temperature = you need a photon to hit it with the higher energy than it currently has in order to do that”
There are several things wrong here, but I’ll only address the most germane. If an electron is in an orbit with 3 eV of energy and there is another orbit at 3.1 eV, then you only need to hit the atom with a 0.1 eV photon. So we can use a photon with LOWER energy (0.1 eV) than it current has (3.0 eV).
This shows that photons from a “cooler” source with lower energy can STILL be absorbed and still raise the temperature of an atom that is “warmer”.
Yes Norman, the equation is invalid.
No amount of your confused rambling will change reality.
Ball4 says: “Oh, and: 1 flux plus 1 flux = 2 fluxes. There, I just added fluxes. Example: One ice cube flux + one ice cube flux = 600/2m^2 of flux.”
I am not sure if you are being facetious, but this is just wrong. There are right ways and wrong ways to add flux. And this is the wrong way. No matter how you add fluxes from ice, you will never get more than ~ 300 W/m^2 from ice @ 0 C.
Clint R
I think I can be certain you are too dumb to follow the proper use of the valid physics equation that you are too stupid to understand.
I will attempt with little hope of success that you can grasp the content of this post.
If the outer sphere (regardless of size) is at 0 K the heat loss of the inner sphere will be 1452 Watts.
If the outer sphere is 273 K (still much colder than the inner sphere) the heat loss of the inner sphere is:
Q=(5.6703×10^-8 W/m^2 K^4)(400^4-273^4)=1136.6 Watts. The warmer temperature of the outer sphere reduced the heat loss of the inner sphere by 315.4 Watts even though it was at the freezing point of water.
If you increase the outer sphere temperature more the Heat loss of the inner sphere continues to be reduced until if they are at the same temperature the heat loss is zero.
Tim, 600W/2m^2 is 300W/m^2
“And Folkerts inadvertently reveals why the invalid equation is invalid.”
The equation is perfectly valid for its purpose.
q = (epsilon)(sigma) (Th4 Tc4) Ah
where q = net power loss (W) from a “hot” surface with area Ah & emissivity (epsilon) at temperature Th within a large “cold” cavity at temperature Tc.
If you try to use this for other purposes it may not work. But for this purpose, every engineer in the world will agree this is the equation to use.
Clint R doubles down writing 1LOT is invalid: “Yes Norman, the equation is invalid.”
Norman, you are caught again. You don’t know squat about physics.
You can’t solve the simple problem, because your equation is invalid.
No amount of your rambling nonsense can make up for your incompetence.
Eben
Mid-Range IR is not a product of electron transitions. It is the product of molecular vibrations. Much lower energy states than electron transitions which are mostly in the visible light range. Some big motions are in the UV range and lower level in the Near IR just below red-light.
Molecular vibrations produce EMR when a molecule has a dipole (charge imbalance) and the atomic nuclei components of the molecule move closer and then farther apart causing changes in the electric dipole field that then generates a lower energy Mid-Range IR photon.
At room temperature nearly all the molecules are at the ground state. Only a few are needed in excited molecular vibrations to produce IR. You have multiple ground state molecules that can absorb incoming IR energy from an external source.
This YouTube video will greatly help you understand the concept.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RqEIr8NtMI
“the temperature of an atom”
Tim! you will want to reword this.
“This shows that photons from a “cooler” source with lower energy can STILL be absorbed and still raise the temperature of an atom that is “warmer”.”
———————————————————–
Yes of course, that’s how you heat up a cup of cold water to make a cup of hot chocolate – by placing it on a giant Ice cube – That’s exactly how it works
Ball4: “Tim, 600W/2m^2 is 300W/m^2”
Sorry. I misread your comment the first time and thought you really were getting 600 W/m^2 from ice. Mea culpa.
On the other hand … if we are talking about fluxes ARRIVING, then we actually can add the fluxes. If a bright hot light bulb provides 300 W/m^2 to a surface, and ice provides 300 W/m^2 to that surface, then the surface really does *receive* 600 W/m^2 of flux.
I think Bindidon might be wrong on this point. He calls Gordon Robertson the dumbest poster on this blog. I would give the prize to Clint R. His posts are so stupid one needs to wonder if he is actually just joking around.
Here is an example of an incredibly stupid post from this poster.
Clint R: “Yes Norman, the equation is invalid.
No amount of your confused rambling will change reality.”
Either he is the dumbest poster on this blog or he is just pulling our legs for unknown reasons.
He believes this equation is invalid.
https://www.idt.com/sites/default/files/useruploads/knowledgebase_images/radiation_equation.png
Why he believes this stupid point is known only to him. He is unable to point out why it is invalid. He posts an example that proves only his stupid thought process, nothing more.
His ignorance is amazing. I did not think I would see this on this blog. I would have to go to a Flat-Earth blog to find such comparable stupidity as he displays on this blog.
Tim! you will want to reword this [“the temperature of an atom”]
Yeah, I almost commented about that, but thought it was not worth it. Temperature only applies to *collections* of particles.
The extra energy of the *atom* (from 3.0 eV to 3.1 eV in my example) raises the temperature of the *collection* (assuming the energy gets thermalized).
“What is the temperature of the larger sphere?”
If the outer sphere is 1 light year in diameter and only has the smaller sphere within it and only outer space outside it then pretty close to the temperature of outer space is the answer.
1) Norman, people that don’t understand physics often make the same mistakes you do. That equation is invalid. A simple example can easily demonstrate why:
A sphere at 400K, with surface area of 1 square meter, is contained within a larger sphere. The inner sphere is emitting 1452 W/m^2. What is the temperature of the larget sphere?
The inner sphere has a temperature of 400K. The larger sphere will NOT decrease that temperature. You don’t understand any of this.
2) Folkerts now acknowledges that adding flux from ice to flux from ice will NOT increase temperature. Did he learn, or is he just confused with his AGW nonsense? Before, he claimed ice flux would increase thet temperature of sunlight flux!
3) RLH stumbled onto the correct result for the spheres problem: The invalid equation is of NO practical use.
Yet again.
What is the temperature of the larger sphere?
If the outer sphere is 1 light year in diameter and only has the smaller sphere within it and only outer space outside it then pretty close to the temperature of outer space is the answer.
CLINT SAYS: “2) Folkerts now acknowledges that adding flux from ice to flux from ice will NOT increase temperature. “
I can’t tell if you are being sloppy or intentionally misleading or if you just don’t understand.
I have ALWAYS acknowledged that adding only flux from ice to only flux from ice will NOT increase temperature OF AN OBJECT RECEIVING THAT RADIATION ABOVE THE TEMPERATURE THE ICE.
What you never seem to acknowledge or understand is what happens when you add fluxes from sources at different temperatures.
Suppose we have three sources: deep space (0 W/m^2 @ 2.7 K), ice (315 W/m^2 @ 273 K) and heating elements (1452 W/m^2 @ 400 K). By using these as the surroundings for an object we can achieve various temperatures for the object.
100% space –› 2.7 K
100% ice –› 273 K
100% heater –› 400 K
50% space 50% ice –› 230 K
50% space 50% heater –› 336 K
50% ice 50% heater –› 352
In particular, the last two show that adding the flux from ice in place of flux from space can raise the temperature of the object. Even though the object was originally above the temperature of ice (336K) just using some flux from the heater, the additional flux from ice raises the temperature further (352K).
> I can’t tell if you are being sloppy or intentionally misleading or if you just don’t understand.
The safe bet is all of the above.
After all, Pup is a troll from Joe’s. Like Kiddo.
As Ray Pierrehumbert says, Joe and Ray have one thing in common: they both don’t know what Joe means.
“1) Norman, people that dont understand physics often make the same mistakes you do. That equation is invalid. A simple example can easily demonstrate why:
A sphere at 400K, with surface area of 1 square meter, is contained within a larger sphere. The inner sphere is emitting 1452 W/m^2. What is the temperature of the larget sphere?
The inner sphere has a temperature of 400K. The larger sphere will NOT decrease that temperature. You dont understand any of this.”
Again, either you are either sloppy, misleading, or misunderstanding. The equation is perfectly valid for its purpose.
q = (epsilon)(sigma) (Th^4 – Tc^4) Ah
where q = net power loss (in watts) from a hot surface with area Ah & emissivity (epsilon) at temperature Th within a large cold cavity at temperature Tc.
So we could use this equations different ways, depending on what info is given.
* You seem to be implying that we know the flux emitted by the inner sphere, (sigma)T^4, = 1452 W/m^2. Then if we are given Ah and Tc, we could calculate the net heat, q. For example, if Tc is also 400 K, then the net heat, q = 0 W
* If you meant instead that q = 1452 W/m^2, then we can use that to calculate that Tc must be ~ 0 K.
So which did you mean? Is 1452 W/m^2 = q or is 1452 W/m^2 = (sigma)Th^4? Once you tell us, then we can use this perfectly valid equation to find the appropriate answer.
“RLH stumbled onto the correct result for the spheres problem: The invalid equation is of NO practical use.”
No I didn’t. Your question was meaningless without some other data.
The ratio of the 2 spheres surface area and the temperature that is outside the outer sphere all determine the answer.
The cult idiots abuse their keyboards only to prove me right. They can’t solve the simple problem with the sphere because that equation is USELESS.
Useless and invalid, just like all of their anti-science.
Clint proves once again that when people actually press him on details, he can’t keep up.
You do get that if the ‘outside’ temperature is that of outer space, then the result of the outer spheres temperature is purely dependent on the ratio of the 2 spheres surface area don’t you?
Troll Folkerts responds in 4 minutes! He’s obsessed with defending the cult nonsense. He doesn’t understand any physics. He doesn’t even understand the invalid equation. The “q” has units of Watts, not W/m^2.
They don’t have a clue. That’s why this is so much fun.
CLINT: He doesn’t even understand the invalid equation. The “q” has units of Watts, not W/m^2.
ME: where q = net power loss (in watts)
Tim, Clint R repeatedly writes the 1LOT is invalid and useless, it’s not Clint being sloppy.
Intentionally misleading the innocent and not understanding thermodynamics both apply to Clint R making Clint R the leading laughing stock on this blog.
Ball4. A couple brief comments
“Heat is a measure of the object’s constituent particle total kinetic energy.”
What you are describing is more commonly called “internal energy”, commonly labeled “U”. “Heat”, labeled “Q” is a transfer of energy.
“That eqn. is the first law of thermodynamics”
Not exactly. That equation, ie q = ε σ (Th4 – Tc4) Ah, is an equation for heat (or more specifically, for heat rate). It is related to the 1st Law, but it would need more. The 1st Law relates heat, work, and internal energy.
ΔU = Q + W
(where Q is heat added and W is work done on the system).
The invalid equation cannot be used to solve the simple problem because the invalid equation is INVALID.
The invalid equation, q = εσ(Th^4 – Tc^4)Ah, is nothing more that subtracting fluxes. Just as fluxes can’t be added, fluxes can’t be subtracted. Fluxes are NOT simple scalar quantities.
The simple example demonstrated how invalid the invalid equaiton is, but the idiots can’t learn.
Tim, “more specifically, for heat rate”
Yes, strictly internal energy change between time 1 and later time 2 (delta U) so a rate. Only internal constituent energies are of interest in thermo. – potential and kinetic. Meaning chemical, nuclear, so forth energies are not of interest unless specified (combustion for example).
In this radiative energy transfer 1LOT eqn. case the only process is due to a difference in temperature in a vacuum so W=0. All processes go forward in time. Time is absent from many text book presentations unfortunately. As you write, Q specifically is a heating rate resulting from the interaction of molecules with radiation in the 1LOT process eqn. Norman wrote out 1LOT in the form 4:27pm:
Delta U per unit time = Q + W where rate of working W = 0 in Norman’s 1LOT eqn. for delta U per unit time = q = …
It is strictly not correct to write heat is added – this is a phrase leftover from the caloric theory and still haunts text books today. Heat is only a measure of the constituent particle total KE ever since Clausius and Joule destroyed the caloric theory. Many authors thereafter still do resort to fantastic measures to keep alive the notion of heat as a substance or “thing” that can somehow transfer just at a border.
Body A has no heat in it, nor does body B at a higher temperature than A, but when they are placed in contact (i.e. allowed to interact) it is written heat springs into existence only when being transferred. Thus paranormal heat only exists instantaneously on the border or during its supposed journey as EMR. Fantastic! is it not? Again since Clausius and Joule:
Heat is a measure of the object’s constituent particle total kinetic energy.
Kinetic temperature is indicated by thermometer as an object’s constituent particle avg. kinetic energy.
NB: Further reading, Prof. Mark Zemansky writing in “The Physics Teacher” vol. 8, 1968, Clifford Truesdell “Rational Thermodynamics” 1969, p. 4 (Truesdell does not mince words), and Bohren text 1998 Sec. 1.8 pp. 22-28 (some irreverent thoughts about heat).
“Yes, strictly internal energy change between time 1 and later time 2 (delta U) so a rate. ”
Not necessarily a rate. It can just be a change. Just like we can talk about a change in position without talking about velocity.
“As you write, Q specifically is a heating rate ”
That was because the given equation was written as a rate. More commonly Q, W, and U are amounts of energy in joules, not rates in watts.
“Heat is only a measure of the constituent particle total KE ever since … ”
Again, you are describing “internal energy”, not “heat”. (and you also dropped the “rate” part, reverting to amounts of energy when you try to define terms.)
“Body A has no heat in it, nor does body B at a higher temperature than A … ”
Correct.
“Thus paranormal heat only exists instantaneously on the border”
Well, other than the word “paranormal” this is correct. Let me ask you, how much “work” is on your body right now? Your body has chemical energy from the food you ate. Your body has some thermal energy because it is warm. If you are moving around, your body has some KE. But your body does not ‘have’ any work.
“Paranormal work” only ‘exists’ instantaneously when you bump into someone, or when you lift something, etc. This is not mysterious or paranormal. It is just the way we choose to define “work” and “heat”.
NB I have a copy of Zemansky’s “Heat and Thermodynamics” textbook. He defines heat as:
“When a closed system whose surroundings are at a different temperature and on which diathermic work may be done undergoes a process, then the energy transferred by non-mechanical means, equal to the difference between the change in internal energy and and the diathermic work, is called heat.”
Clearly “heat” is a “process”, not a constituent of an object. I suppose this might seem ‘paranormal’ to some.
He also derives the internal energy of an ideal gas as
U = (3/2)NkT = N(1/2 m v_avg^2)
which clearly *is* the total KE of the particles, ie the number of particles, N, times the average KE per particle, 1/2 mv_avg^2.
“More commonly Q, W, and U are amounts of energy in joules, not rates in watts.”
No. Commonly it is not written U = Q + W, it is properly and commonly written delta U = Q + W as I wrote so Q and W are always commonly traceable to rates that I have seen. Every process delta U takes time. No process occurs in an instant. Every textbook I have seen, can be traced to Q and W being rates with some digging.
Zemansky writing in 1970 on the misuse of “heat” term – this clip is after much earlier writing your clipped quote:
“I admit that at times I have been guilty of watering down the explanation of internal energy, but students have shown themselves willing to accept the idea of internal energy in terms of molecular kinetic and potential energies. Once they have a feeling for (thermodynamic) internal energy, they accept work and heat as methods of energy transfer and learn to handle the first law acceptably.” My emphasis.
“Again, you are describing “internal energy”, not “heat”.”
No! Thermodynamic internal energy U includes the potential energy of constituent molecules as Zemansky notes; observe PE is NOT “a measure of the constituent particle total KE” so PE is not “heat” nor is U.
“It is just the way we choose to define “work” and “heat”.
Use Clausius defn. of heat and you can’t go wrong. Work is force thru a distance which takes time in 1LOT process so W is a rate. With W = 0 then Q must always and everywhere be traced to a heating rate not strictly an amount in:
delta U = 0 + Q
“(Zemansky) also derives the internal energy of an ideal gas as
U = (3/2)NkT = N(1/2 m v_avg^2)”
Look back in his work, somewhere he has “watered down U” by assuming PE of the molecules to be 0 or not of interest so this is only the KE portion of U.
Mark Zemansky improved his writing over time and properly concludes:
“it is better to focus on…Q and W as methods (his emphasis) of producing changes in the internal energy. I believe this treatment provides the smoothest transition from elementary thermal physics to legitimate thermodynamics.”
Clint,
“The invalid equation cannot be used to solve the simple problem because the invalid equation is INVALID.”
What then, would be the valid equation to use to find the heat flow between two concentric shells one at T1 and the other at T2?
“No. Commonly it is not written U = Q + W”
Good thing I didn’t write that.
“Q and W are always commonly traceable to rates “
Again, no. Q and W are *amounts* of energy transfer, in joules. They are not *rates* of energy transfer, watts. Work is ‘traceable’ to
W = F*r
Whether that force is applied in 0.01 s or 100 s, the work is the same. (Now I will grant you that the *power* involved in the process might also be interesting to study, BUT IT IS A DIFFERNT QUANTITY.)
If they were rates, we would write
dU/dT = dQ/dt + dW/dt.
This is also valid*, but it is a slightly different concept.
“No process occurs in an instant.”
True, but not germane. Changes do not have to be written as rates with respect to time.
“…they accept work and heat as methods of energy transfer and learn to handle the first law acceptably.”
Exactly. These are transfers only. They are not quantities that exist inside an object.
Thermodynamic internal energy U includes the potential energy …”
Yes. But I think you are missing one or two key ideas. Like “degrees of freedom” and the “equipartition theorem”. It is NOT the case that “U includes PE & KE” but “Q only includes KE” (which seems to be the direction you are heading).
“somewhere he has ‘watered down U’…”
Maybe I should have specifically included the word “monatomic ideal gas” — which has no PE.
“it is better to focus on…Q and W as methods (his emphasis) of producing changes in the internal energy.”
YES! Q is not some constituent of an object. It is not KE or PE. It is the method. If Q = mc Delta(t), “Q” is the ‘method’ (using Zemansky’s wording) of producing the change, eg placing the object adjacent to a hotter object. “Q” is not the KE of either object.
“If they were rates, we would write:
dU/dT = dQ/dt + dW/dt.”
No that doesn’t add up, Tim. A velocity is not the sum of two accelerations.
“Q and W are *amounts* of energy transfer, in joules.”
but then Tim writes:
“Exactly. These are transfers only. They are not quantities that exist inside an object.”
2nd statement is correct, they are not amounts or quantities, they are transfers of amounts of energy per unit time. Properly Q is a heating rate, W a rate of doing work & both meaning joules transferred per unit time during the delta U process for each method of energy transfer.
Monoatomic gas molecules do possess both KE and also PE in U.
“”Q” is not the KE of either object.”
You are getting there, right, Q is not an amount of something, Q is a heating rate. W a working rate as I have been writing:
Delta U = Q + W in joules transferred per unit time during the 2 processes changing U.
Heat is a measure of the object’s constituent particle total kinetic energy – at any given time.
Kinetic temperature is indicated by thermometer as an object’s constituent particle avg. kinetic energy – at any given time.
Thus EMR is not heat or temperature as EMR has no massive constituent molecular or atomic particles.
A couple final remarks for Ball4.
1) “U” is “internal energy”, not “internal power”. If U is energy in joules, then Q and W are also measured in joules.
2) Google “first law of thermodynamics”. Look at the first 10 entries that come up. How many say U, Q, and Q are rates in watts, rather than energy in joules.
3) Pick up any physics, chemistry, or engineering* textbook. Does it list U, Q, and W as amounts of energy, joules, or as rates of energy, watts.
Yes. all processes take time.
No. That does not mean Q or W (or displacement or mass) are rates.
*Note — some engineering texts sometimes use “q” as a rate. But they will not use the same symbol simultaneously for “heat” in the 1st Law.
“Delta U = Q + W in joules transferred per unit time during the 2 processes changing U.”
This would require that Delta U also be joules per unit time. But U is in Joules and Delta U is in joules, too. So are Q and W. The quantity you are thinking of is dQ/dt (often labeled Q with a dot over the top = “Q dot”).
Look, don’t argue with me. Argue with the entirety of science. Google “first law of thermodynamics” and all the hits will say that U, Q, and W are *amounts* in joules, not rates in watts. Check any physics text. Or chemistry text. Or engineering text. Ask any prof who teaches thermodynamics.
Skipping the #1 dictionary hit and the youtubes to answer “How many say U, Q, and Q are rates in watts, rather than energy in joules” – I looked, NONE use an amount U they all use delta U:
#2 hit: Wiki says delta U = Q + W
#3 hit: delta U = E2 – E1 = Q – W where E is internal energy
#4 hit: delta U = Q – W
#5 hit: delta E = q + w where E is the internal energy
#6 hit: delta U = Q – W
#7 hit: delta U = q- w
#8 hit: delta U = Q – W
#9 hit: delta U = Q + W
#10 hit: delta U = q + w
#11 hit: the change in internal energy of a system is equal to the work done by or to the system and the heat that flows in or out of it. (no symbols used).
10/10 supporting just as I wrote 11:52am: “Commonly it is not written U = Q + W, it is properly and commonly written delta U = Q + W”
“Pick up any physics, chemistry, or engineering* textbook.”
& all texts that I have picked up recently also write: delta U = Q + W processes over unit time so name one you have seen with an amount U = an amount Q plus an amount W. There might actually be one.
—-
“But U is in Joules and Delta U is in joules, too.”
No. U is an amount at an instant of time. Delta U is a process over unit time so then must be Q and W a process over unit time for proper addition.
Look, don’t argue with me. Argue with the entirety of science in at least the 1st 10/10 hits for google “first law of thermodynamics” & their text book ref.s in the notes. Consult Prof. Zemansky’s works who long taught thermodynamics, Prof. Bohren who wrote the book on Atm. Thermodynamics, and Cliff Truesdell who reported on the evolution of thermodynamics over time:
delta U = Q + W
Fixed:
Skipping the #1 dictionary hit and the youtubes to answer “How many say U, Q, and W are rates in watts, rather than energy in joules – I looked, NONE use an amount U they all use delta U:
#2 hit: Wiki says delta U = Q + W
#3 hit: delta U = E2 – E1 = Q – W where E is internal energy
#4 hit: delta U = Q – W
#5 hit: delta E = q + w where E is the internal energy
#6 hit: delta U = Q – W
#7 hit: delta U = q – w
#8 hit: delta U = Q – W
#9 hit: delta U = Q + W
#10 hit: delta U = q + w
SIGH.
I am 100% agreeing that the first law is written
Delta(U) = Q + W
I wrote it that way too. That is not the issue.
******************************************************
What I am disagreeing about is your insistence that this is a “rate”. “Rate” implies a change in one variable in relation to another variable.
Delta(x) is a change in position. Delta(x)/Delta(t) = velocity is the related rate.
Delta(q) is a change in charge. Delta(q)/Delta(t) = electric current is the related rate.
Delta(V) is a change in volume. Delta(V)/Delta(t) = flow rate is the related rate.
And Delta(U) is a change. Simply a change. Not a change ‘per unit time’. Not a rate. It is measured in joules – joules = joules. Not in watts.
“U is an amount at an instant of time. “
YES! Just like position is a location at an instant in time
“Delta U is a process over unit time”
NO! It is a process over what ever amount of time it wants.
Just like displacement is not a rate.
dU/dt would be a rate
dQ/dt would be a rate
dW/dt would be a rate
Geez Tim you set up a pattern and then dodge it at the very last entry, here is what your pattern really predicts:
Delta(x) is a change in position. Delta(x)/Delta(t) = velocity is the related rate.
Delta(q) is a change in charge. Delta(q)/Delta(t) = electric current is the related rate.
Delta(V) is a change in volume. Delta(V)/Delta(t) = flow rate is the related rate.
And Delta(U) is a change in internal energy. Delta(U)/Delta(t) = rate of internal energy change which is Q + W; rate of internal energy change = heating rate plus working rate.
You could add per unit time for each change for more clarity:
Delta(x) is a change in position which takes unit time. Delta(x)/Delta(t) = velocity is the related rate.
Delta(q) is a change in charge which takes unit time. Delta(q)/Delta(t) = electric current is the related rate.
Delta(V) is a change in volume which takes unit time. Delta(V)/Delta(t) = flow rate is the related rate.
Delta(U) is a change in internal energy which takes unit time. Delta(U)/Delta(t) = rate of internal energy change
Again, name a text or provide a link where U = an amount Q plus an amount W. There might actually be one.
“name a text or provide a link where U = an amount Q plus an amount W”
Again … nobody claims that.
Again … I never claimed that.
Stop beating that dead horse already. Stop attacking that straw man. Stop distracting with the red herring.
The equation is always
Delta(U) = Q + W (or Q-W using a different sign convention).
(Change in U) = an amount Q plus an amount W.
************************************************
Name one source that says “Delta(U)” is a *rate*. That it occurs “per unit time”. Ain’t no such source. Even you
“You could add per unit time for each change for more clarity”
No. A change of position of 5 meters in NOT the same as a change in position of 5 meters per unit time. They express 2 related but distinct ideas.
During a process, 5 J of heat are added to a system and 3 J of work are done by the system.
If this process takes 1 second, then the first law tells us
Delta(U) = +5 J – 3 J = 2 J
If this process takes 100 seconds, then the first law tells us
Delta(U) = +5 J – 3 J = 2 J
If this process takes 10,000 seconds, then the first law tells us
Delta(U) = +5 J – 3 J = 2 J
The result is independent of time. There is no “per unit time” in the 1st Law.
“Again … I never claimed (U,W,Q are amounts).”
No straw man; Tim 4:01pm on 9/15: “More commonly Q, W, and U are amounts of energy in joules”. Commonly it is delta U. Any change of position x (delta x) occurs over unit time. Any change of internal energy U (delta U) occurs over unit time.
“Name one source that says “Delta(U)” is a *rate*.”
I’ve already named three sources, see 9/15 2:43pm. You are avoiding reading them, see your college librarian.
“If this process takes 1 second, then the first law tells us
Delta(U) = +5 J – 3 J = 2 J”
See those are amounts for heat and work! There is not an amount of heat existing in the object. What really physically happened for legitimate thermodynamics (Zemansky term) in a 1LOT process that occurs over 1 sec of time:
Delta(U)/sec = +5J/sec (heating rate) – 3J/sec (working rate) = 2J/sec change in the internal energy U during the process. So forth.
There is no amount of 5J of heat that entered into the object from somewhere else during the heating process – that is just fantasy. What physically happened is a measure of the object’s constituent particle total kinetic energy increased by 5J/sec (or maybe its PE you can’t know) and decreased by 3J/sec used up doing work for a net change of internal energy U = 2J/sec during the 1 sec. process. You never needed to know the amount of U in the object that way (you can’t know anyway).
Delta U = Q + W over the time of the process still holds, the change in U didn’t happen instantly, the change took 1sec. See the sources.
“What physically happened is a measure of the objects constituent particle total kinetic energy increased by 5J/sec (or maybe its PE you cant know)”
Well, you can know. The energy is distributed evenly among the degrees of freedom. Figure out the degrees of freedom associated with KE & PE, and you know where the energy went.
“You never needed to know the amount of U in the object that way (you cant know anyway).”
I’ll agree 100% there. Only changes are important.
As for the rest, I think we will have to agree to disagree here. Part of the power of thermodynamics is that you can figure out a lot simply from the initial and final states, without needing to know all the intermediate details. If U increased by 2J and the system did 3J of work, then Q must be 5J. But we could have heated first and then done the work. Or done the work, waited, then done the heating. Or done them simultaneously. We don’t need to know rates or times, just totals to apply the 1st Law.
Adding the element of time does some interesting things. But none of your sources are talking about rates. All are talking about initial states and final states (Ui & Uf) and the net heat (Q) and net work (W) .
All…ALL are talking about initial states and final states (Ui & Uf) and the net heating rate (Q) and/or net working rate (W) during elapsed unit time of their delta U process. Every. One. 10/10.
AllALL are talking about initial states and final states (Ui & Uf) and the net heating
rate(Q) and/or net workingrate(W), all measured in joules (not watts).The change in internal energy is related to the net Q delivered and the net work done.
[Rates are also interesting, but not specifically what the 1st Law addresses.]
“The change in internal energy is related to the net Q delivered and the net work done.”
Yes thus Q and W are rates.
Commonly 1LOT relevant to climate: Energy is conserved during any thermodynamic process changing U. Any delta U process takes time so modern text books commonly write: delta U = Q + W
Q and W are amounts of energy across the control volume per unit time that the process takes to complete delta U so Q and W are commonly rates.
Tim has not yet reported a modern text book source that shows only U = Q + W (not delta U) all in amounts of energy though there may be one yet unfound that does not write properly delta U = Q + W.
This has been true since Clausius and Joule demolished the caloric theory that employed an amount of caloric in joules. I understand caloric theory has been unusually hard for many to leave behind writing many unphysical definitions to give heat material existence. IIRC reports had the last paper written using caloric theory was in early 1970s so it has been left behind formally.
Concepts such as energy are not understood by simply defining them. Definitions alone cannot satisfy a craving for physical understanding.
for Norman and Lori….the inventor of the PCR method used in the covid RNA-PCR test calls Anthony Fauci a liar. Offers advice to the uneducated…
https://www.reddit.com/r/ScienceUncensored/comments/ksssbe/kary_mullis_pcr_test_inventor_calls_dr_fauci_a/
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-pcr-idUSKBN24420X
“Fact check: Inventor of method used to test for COVID-19 didnt say it cant be used in virus detection”
“Misleading. The quote regarding the limitations of PCR tests appears not to be directly from Mullis, but in any case is not evidence the test is fraudulent. PCR tests are being used widely in England to show that SARS-CoV-2 viral genetic material is present in the patient.”
You keep throwing out these strawman arguments. Who said the PCR test is fraudulent? It does have its limitations. You do understand those limitations?
Yes. Do you?
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/what-tests-could-potentially-be-used-for-the-screening-diagnosis-and-monitoring-of-covid-19-and-what-are-their-advantages-and-disadvantages/
“An RT-PCR test is highly sensitive and fairly reliable if performed on a sample from an infected part of the body whilst an active infection is occurring.”
“Advantages and limitations
Advantages:
RT-PCR is accepted by scientists and medical staff as a robust and well documented technique.
With RT-PCR being so common in research and medicine, the technology is already in place to test for COVID-19.
RT-PCR can detect current infections of disease, allowing medical staff to determine who is currently infected and who is not.
Disadvantages:
RT-PCR relies on capturing and detecting the virus and so it is possible to miss patients who have cleared virus and recovered from disease.
The distribution of virus across the respiratory tract varies between patients, so even if a person is infected, the virus may only be detectable in sputum or nasopharyngeal swab but not necessarily at both locations at the same time.
RT-PCR for COVID-19 can only tell if a person is currently infected with this particular coronavirus. It cant provide information on other diseases or symptoms.”
The biggest fraud. No, let’s say a really big fraud. Is we didn’t
get a cheap and fast test for covid.
It’s on going.
RIP: Norm Macdonald, Iconic Comedian and Saturday Night Live Alum, Dead at 61.
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/norm-macdonald-iconic-comedian-and-saturday-night-live-alum-dead-at-61/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=breaking&utm_campaign=newstrack&utm_term=25041586
Linked:
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
That guy was funny.
I guess, we can say, is funny.
One of the best.
-The conservative establishment, its politicians, and its media, don’t lack ideas or people. But too many of its leaders do lack determination and endurance and fearlessness. The people can tell. As it is said, “Men don’t follow titles, they follow courage.”-
What The Right Needs Now Is The Courage To Fight Even If It Costs Us
By Mollie Hemingway
SEPTEMBER 14, 2021
https://thefederalist.com/2021/09/14/what-the-right-needs-now-is-the-courage-to-fight-even-if-it-costs-us/?&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=the_federalist_daily_briefing_2021_09_14&utm_term=2021-09-14
Also from instapundit
Courage is important. It’s better than smart.
But women may not exactly follow that rule.
Though they may love it. Which is stronger.
I am not a conservative.
I am more like an Adams, Henry
A libertarian is the short version.
Christian conservative anarchist {which of course doesn’t go to church – not yet, anyhow} or say, far left of Bernie Sander- and much smarter- I can do basic math.
gbaikie…”What The Right Needs Now Is The Courage To Fight Even If It Costs Us…By Mollie Hemingway”
***
Seems the woman is confusing Left/Right with other issues like justice, humanitarianism, political-correctness, etc.
Politicians likeOcasio-Cortez in the States are not the left, they are the new breed, the politically-correct, who are seriously confused about what they want. They are dishonest people who will lie and stop at nothing to get their vision across. However, their vision, like defunding police, and controls on fossils fuels will ultimately harm people.
John Christy of UAH has spoken about that aspect. He taught in Africa and he knows that if you deprive people of fuel it harms them. Life expectancy becomes shorter. IMHO, no theory is worth implementing if it harms people. Climate alarmists have not thought that aspect through, in fact, I doubt if most have even considered the ramifications of make fuel so expensive that no one can afford it except the wealthy.
In a political debate in my region years ago, a reporter asked a Green candidate if she had plans to help people in small coastal towns, that depended on logging, who would be harmed by her policies. Obviously, had her policies become reality, those towns would have shut down and people would lose their jobs. She did not even attempt to answer the question, side-stepping it completely.
The real Left came from the working class of long ago, ordinary people who were being used by unscrupulous and heartless profiteers. They fought back through unions and protests that lead to changes in the social order, like womens’ rights, unemployment insurance, medicare, workers’ compensation, pensions, better wages and living conditions.
They are all gone…kaput. That Left no longer exists. The term ‘Left’ used these days is a stolen name that has no meaning.
The irony and the sadness is that when real people get together and communicate, without the labels, they find ways to get along. During WW II, the Right and the Left had to unite to get the job done. They often as not learned to like and respect each other. When the war ended, they slowly drifted back to their imagined differences.
I have no time for labels. If we are going to make a difference in this world we need to communicate, with intelligence and maturity. Name-called, labels, and insults lead only to violence.
I don’t think that will happen till humans learn that thought-processes based on conditioning are the root of the problem. Conditioned minds cannot communicate, cannot offer love, compassion and empathy, because they see others through a conditioned image.
“The real Left came from the working class of long ago, ordinary people who were being used by unscrupulous and heartless profiteers.”
The real Left came from the French politicians on the left side.
Which as pols can do, decided murdering people was the solution.
What this noble “working class” did was not much better.
Unions suck.
Teacher Unions suck worse. Public unions even worse.
But also any monopolies suck.
Unions are just another kind of monopoly.
Of course government seems like it has to be a monopoly in it’s
nature- having 50 states, is not bad idea, but we could do better than this.
Dialogue of working class with another class could be
helpful.
But war is not good idea.
Corporations seem to be hoover vacuum cleaner of idiots.
How about, don’t work for/with the idiots???
The Left has killed 100 million people- at least.
Unions being on that team, share in that crime- and
more their own crimes.
But the left vs right is the left wants improvement, fast.
And I think lots of things need to be improved, very fast.
One improvement is not supporting the Teachers Unions.
The right {in this dichotomy} tends to be too lazy or afraid to simply do their job. Do everyone favor, quit whatever job, you are too afraid or lazy to do.
The only skill pols seems to have is hurting other people.
“Do you remember fewer heatwaves when you were younger? The data agrees. The mercury is soaring past 50 degrees twice as much as it did in the ’80s, BBC analysis has found. Between 1980 and 2009, temperatures passed 50 degrees about 14 days a year, but since 2010 that number has risen to about 26 times a year. The University of Oxford’s Friederike Otto said it was “100% attributed to the burning of fossil fuels”. “
Yes , “somebody said something” is the new scientific method standard
student…”The University of Oxford’s Friederike Otto said it was “100% attributed to the burning of fossil fuels”. ”
***
He can say what he wants, science requires that he prove it. Where is the scientific proof for a one-to-one correlation between fossils fuels and warming?
When Tyndall did his experiment in the 19th century, he put the gases in a long narrow tube and his source of IR was a candle flame. How does one possibly compare those conditions to a turbulent atmosphere where the source of IR is a highly variable surface?
Tyndall used a thermopyle to detect changes in IR transfer through the tube. All we have today is an indirect method of detecting IR emissions where the CO2 spectrum is hidden by the WV spectrum.
In other words, the words of Otto above are shear speculation based on consensus.
“(Tyndall’s) source of IR was a candle flame.”
No Gordon. Go back and read his 1861 paper again, it will do you some good. Hint to help: Tyndall’s IR source was a steady 212F.
Didn’t Tyndall conclude that CO2’s contribution to GHE was insignificant?
6:36pm: No.
Tyndall 1861 on the more modern term IR active gas: “Those who like myself have been taught to regard transparent gases as almost perfectly diathermanous, will probably share the astonishment with which I witnessed the foregoing effects. I was indeed slow to believe it possible that a body so constituted, and so transparent to light as olefiant gas, could be so densely opake to any kind of calorific rays; and to secure myself against error, I made several hundred experiments with this single substance… Having thus established in a general way the absor_ptive power of olefiant gas..”
“In fact, the deflections (of the needle indicating relative gas absor_ption of IR) actually produced by their respective absor_ptions at 5 inches tension are as follow :
Air …… A fraction of a degree. Same for Oxygen, Nitrogen, Hydrogen.
Carbonic oxide (CO2) .. 18 degrees!”
Stephen` Paul Anderson
Would like to know the source of your statement. It is wrong. Go to the original source.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015067272735&view=1up&seq=198
I think this might bring up the correct page of his book.
He found Carbonic Acid (CO2 in the tube) in a 41″ tube would absorb 12.7% of his IR source and not much change from a longer tube.
So again, can you source site. Your claim is not at all supported by the evidence.
If you look at page 171 of the Tyndall book I linked to in my post you will see he describes the GHE with ethylene gas.
He said such a gas would considerably warm a planet’s surface by allowing in the solar energy but minimizing the outflowing IR (some returning to the surface).
Read for yourself.
Norman,
Did you know in Tyndall’s experiments he used CO2 at 40 times the atmospheric concentration? Also, what does ethylene gas have to do with anything? No one is saying CO2 doesn’t absorb IR. We are saying it is negligible in the Earth’s atmosphere.
Prof. Tyndall also used the natural percentage of CO2 in his dry lab air to show the atm. has significant natural IR opacity:
“When air was admitted, a deflection was produced, which showed that the (dry lab) air, on entering the vacuum, was heated (by its natural IR opacity due natural CO2 absorbing IR from the 212F source). On exhausting, the needle was also deflected, showing that the interior of the tube was chilled. These are indeed known effects; but I was desirous to make myself perfectly sure of them. 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.”
Tyndall didn’t use the word significant. That’s your word.
Also, I don’t know if that shows anything. It shows the air was heated by conduction.
There was no conduction heating rate; Tyndall carefully constructed his apparatus to eliminate conductive energy transfer from his 212F source. Tyndall’s words for natural dry air warming: “in the case of air to 5 degrees FAHR.”
Significant enough 5F to easily measure by thermometer in the lab. So if you mean natural 5 degrees FAHR is insignificant, I’ll know your words meaning in terms of temperature degrees F in the future.
Stephen P. Anderson
Consider. Tyndall experiment used 40 times the CO2 concentration as in the atmosphere. But all the IR absorbed in around 40 inches of tube. That is a little over 3 feet.
If you go into our atmosphere with its less concentration it still means all the surface IR (in CO2 IR bands, around 15 micron) will be absorbed in around 120 feet of air. I do not know what the measured optical depth is.
barry…”What data are you referring to that show it is simply not happening?”
***
Pretty easy answer, Barry. In any population, the number of deaths per population is under 0.2% in the worst cases. In a typical case here in Canada, as in British Columbia, Canada, the number of deaths is about 0.035%. Most of those deaths by far affected seniors.
Children simply don’t get as covid infection. That’s a switch according to Swedish epidemiologist Johan Giesecke, an advisor to the WHO. He claimed children usually get the flu and pass it on to adults. He also claimed there is no scientific proof that social distancing reduces viral infection.
In Sweden, held up by alarmists as a bad decision re lockdowns, 96% of the deaths involve people over 60. I have not seen the figures for the UK by age group but I am betting, since Sweden has a lower number of deaths, that the breakdown re age groups is similar.
Gordon Robertson
I would not trust a source that claims there is no scientific proof social distancing reduces viral infection. Sounds really poor logic. Viruses can’t reproduce on their own, they need a host to do so. If the hosts are not available to use to create more viruses, then more viruses will not be created. If one infected person is too far away to infect others (with virus laden moisture aerosols) the viral infection will be reduced. How do you find so many alleged experts who have zero logical thought process and make claims with little foundation? Amazing that you find them.
Norman,
I don’t think there have been any conclusive studies on indoor viral transmission. The virus travels on water droplets and dust particles, etc. If you’re inside where there are people and there is forced ventilation does it really matter how far away you stand?
Stephen P. Anderson
It could very well make a difference. As you move away from someone the area of spread increases (kind of like the inverse square law). An infected person will breathe out or cough out so many virus particles but as you have sufficient distance the number of particles you get into your system is reduced.
Here is an article that explores viral load and the severity of the disease.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19057-5
The social distancing theory is based upon such ideas. When you get an intruding biological agent into your system your immune system reacts. If the number is small your immune system can kill it off before it overwhelms and sickens you. If you get a large dose, it will start rapidly reproducing. Now you are in a battle. Your immune system produces anti-bodies at a certain rate but the virus also is reproducing at a higher rate if more initial dose is present.
So you might get a small initial dose and don’t get too sick. If you get a larger initial dose the risk for dangerous illness goes up. So wearing masks and social distancing can reduce the amount of viral load if you are around an infected person and greatly reduce how sick you will become.
Norman,
So you use logic and inference to make decisions about effectively combating pandemics? Do you always use logic and inference? What do you think of Ed Berry’s new paper accepted by Atmosphere?
Stephen P. Anderson
I have not got much into the details of Ed Berry’s work. I think there have been lengthy discussions on the topic on this blog in the past. I believe his claim is mankind’s CO2 emission are not driving the upward measured values. He has some ideas on this but I have not delved much into them.
One point I am thinking (I may be wrong about it). I think his claim is that nature emits 20 times more CO2 than mankind so the sinks don’t care about the source. I could counter with other logic. If a lake was in a steady state for many years, inflow and outflow roughly equal so the lake level stayed reasonably the same it would not matter if the natural flows dwarfed the manmade ones for this reason. If the lake was at a steady state but humans started adding 5% more water to the lake, the level of the lake would rise and all the rise would be because of the human addition.
Assuming that the outflows don’t increase to match the inflows in which case the level would be relatively unchanged.
stephen…”The virus travels on water droplets and dust particles…”
***
It’s not possible to see a virus in real time, almost everything we know about them is theoretical.
A virus can only be seen using an electron microscope. There are two types of EMs, the scanning EM and the transmission EM. The SEM can only penetrate the surface of a substance to a depth of 2 nanometres. The TEM operates by firing electrons right through a very thin specimen, about 100 nm thick. Therefore neither can capture the image of a virus moving through air, whether piggy-backed on a WV or dust particle.
The SEM could not capture a virus in mid-air because it needs to be focused just as an optical microscope has to be focused. The TEM blows electrons right through the target, destroying it eventually. However, the TEM depends on a focused, stationary target beyond the specimen target as well since the collection of information from the contact between electrons and the target must be detected by a detector at a fixed length from the target.
The biggest problem, however, is that both the SEM and the TEM operate in a vacuum, where no air particles or WV could exist. Therefore, the notion of a virus floating about on a dust particle or anything else is theoretical. A vacuum is required because electrons collide and are dispersed by air molecules.
I am afraid the photos of viruses presented are science fiction. The tiny golf balls with spikes sticking out are the product of someone’s imagination. The photos of viruses published on the Net have never been confirmed. In other words, we have to take the word of the producer of the photos that they are viruses.
When the first EM photo (micrograph) of the SARS virus was produced by a Scottish researcher, her paper was rejected. The reviewer claimed the photo could be one of any viral particle. She named it the coronavirus because it had a halo around it like a corona.
I have worked with electrons (obviously not directly) in the electrical, electronic, and computer fields. I have actually worked with circuitry similar to that used in electron microscopes to accelerate electrons. I am reasoning, because an electron is a particle with a negative electric charge, and produces a magnetic field as it moves, that many of the artefacts produced in EM micrographs are produced by interactions between the electromagnetic field of the electron and electrons in the atoms of specimens.
Some micrograph producers assert that particles at angles to the main specimen body are the spikes of viruses. I disagree. I think that is an artefact of an electromagnetic field aligning stray pieces of the target to stick out at angles to it, like someones hair standing in end during a fright. Then again, what do I know?
Dr. Stefan Lanka has been questioning the claims of virus photos for the major diseases and he has the expertise to tell a virus from other cellular particles. Apparently, virus particles are hard to tell apart from an actual virus, and Luc Montagnier had an issue with HIV where he could not see the HIV virus but could see all sorts of particles.
Montagnier inferred HIV MUST BE 1 in 1000 particles seen on an EM, using an indirect method which he developed. The same method has been used since to claim identification for covid.
norman…”I would not trust a source that claims there is no scientific proof social distancing reduces viral infection. Sounds really poor logic”.
***
The thing I liked about Giesecke is his straight-forwardness. It is politically-incorrect to make such a claim, but he did so without fanfare.
The social distancing theory is about 120 years old and has never been tested. To test it, you’d need two significantly-sized groups, one practicing social distancing and the other not. Let them go about their normal routines and measure the number of deaths after a certain period.
There is no proof to back your theory of a ‘virus laden moisture aerosol’. If such an entity did exist, a cloth mask could not possibly stop it since you are breathing in and out enough of such particles to keep alive. Large volumes of air and WV pass through a mask each breath.
If such aerosols could pass viruses, there is nothing magical about 6 feet preventing an infection.
Dr. Ryan Cole hypothesized that the problem is a lack of sunlight during winter in northern climates. It’s about immunity. Limited sunlight, little or no vitamin D, reduced immunity.
If the human immune system is kept at an optimal level, the immune system will handle infection.
Gordon Robertson
I already posted this video, you must have missed it. Here it is again. Please watch and consider.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6cTDGqcUpA
norman…”I already posted this video, you must have missed it. Here it is again. Please watch and consider”.
***
It’s one of the dumbest, non-scientific experiments I have ever seen. Where do I begin?
1)no human expels aerosols at the concentration of a spray can.
2)the aerosol diameters used are orders of magnitude larger than a virus.
3)when the mask blocks the aerosol can spray, it is getting soaking wet and eventually a mask worn by a human will become damp, and useless, to blocking anything. A damp mask is a perfect place for bacteria and viruses to breed.
If a person wearing a mask touches a contaminated surface then inadvertently touches the mask, perhaps to adjust it, the contaminant will be on the mask and close to the person’s nose/mouth.
4)he was using a flame to check the density of aerosol spray blocked by the mask. Not nearly sensitive enough. He did not measure how much of the vapour passed through the mask. Not enough to light the flame, but likely enough to infect a recipient if the aerosol-laden virus theory is correct.
5)all the experimenter proved was that you need a high volume of aerosol and pressure at a close distance to light a flame.
WHO recommends 1 meter social distancing. There is nothing anywhere to back up the recommendation for 1 meter or any other distance such as the 6 feet recommended USA and Canada. Its completely arbitrary; the people making these rules are making it up.
ken…”WHO recommends…”
***
Who’s on first? What’s on second?…Abbott and Costello.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Pretty easy answer, Barry. In any population, the number of deaths per population is under 0.2% in the worst cases.”
In reply to:
“What data are you referring to that show it [COVID mortality] is simply not happening?”
Where not happening would actually equal zero percent.
The level of your asinine stupidity never fails to impress.
Cancer deaths in the US are 0.15% of the population per annum recently.
By your metric, death from cancer is “not happening.”
You know what else people aren’t dying of, you horses ass?
Vehicle accidents. Heart disease. Gunshot wounds. You name it.
You have to be among the stupidest people I’ve ever had the misfortune to waste bandwidth on. Fuck me dead, you’re dumb.
Barry,
I don’t see the government outlawing smoking? Or sunbathing? Or using microwave ovens? Or a myriad of other carcinogens? This has nothing to do with the concern for the citizenry. So stop your virtue signaling.
You’ve missed the point but inadvertently supported it.
COVID would have been much worse without policies aimed to reduce it to only the 3rd most lethal killer in the US.
Governments – even conservative ones – mandate vaccines for schoolchildren. Reducing harm is part of the brief, and that goes for the other ills you listed, too. There are policies for most of those and government grants for R&D. Donald J Trump raised the minimum age for tobacco smoking in 2019, for example.
The people more likely to suffer from COVID are those denying its severity and ignoring mandates and guidance. At this point I have zero sympathy for them. These idiots can go to hell.
barry, are you finding that the more you listen to MSM the more frustrated and angry you get?
Try reality.
It works.
Reality is that the Covid vaccines(s) work to reduce transmission.
Have you taken the COVID vaccine?
Clint,
Are you getting the COVID vaccine?
My last stabbing at floating breakwaters.
I was looking at old notes, recently and made
what I consider improvement: {*** see below}
–10 meter diameter and 20 meters tall *** see below
Steel wall thickness: 4 mm or .004 meter
circumference 31.4159 x 20 x .004 = 2.513272 times 8000 kg = 20,106.176 kg
2,010.6176 kg of steel per meter
Put them 10 meter apart: 1,005.3088 kg per meter.–
*** 10 meter diameter 20 meters tall
Outside wall thickness 1 mm
Inner wall 10 meter – 10 cm thickness 1 mm
5 cm wide plastic spacer between inner and outer 1 mm thick walls.
The circumference of 10 meter diameter is 31.4159 meter
The plastic spacer should be a bit springy, but not so firm that one can’t pull them thru the space.
Start with loose ones to get “centered”, then pull the right sized ones thru the walls.
Put 40 of them evenly spaced {it’s 31.4159 meter so less than 1 meter spacing}.
40 times 20 meter is 800 meter of total length plastic sort of 1 beam with flange flared giving springiness
So got the up/down part of I being 49 mm tall and 5 mm thick and two crosses it are 4 cm and 2 mm thick and the each 2 cm wing are curved so ends more then 5 cm across. So count two wing 2 + 2 mm = 4 mm remove from 49 mm tall. Giving 45 mm by 5 mm thick times 800 meter + two 4 cm wide by 2 mm times 800 meter:
.04 meter times .002 meter times 800 meter = 0.064 cubic meter plastic x 2 = 0.128 cubic meter Plus
.045 meter time .005 times 800 = 0.18 add wings 0.128 = 0.308 cubic meter {if density is 1 = 308 kg of plastic}.
And at ends put a plastic end tied into into the 40 I beams. And have it filled with water.
The volume of plastic or water is:
10 meter – 1 mm walls which is 10 meter – 2 mm = 9.998 diameter, 4.999 meter radius = 78.50833724159 cubic meter per 1 meter high
10 meter minus 1 mm walls or 9.998 diameter or 4.999 radius – 50 mm = 4.949 Meters = 76.94571037559 cubic meter per 1 meter high
78.50833724159 – 76.94571037559 = 1.562626866 cubic meters times 20 tall = 31.25253732 cubic meter or 31,252.53732 kg of water
and plastic, And we have accounted for 308 kg of it being plastic. Not plastic of ends. 1 end is 1 cm, two ends .02 meters
1.562626866 times .02 meter = 0.03125253732 cubic meters plastic or 31.25253732 kg and totaling + 308 kg = 339.253 kg of plastic
Anyhow, probably don’t move / transport it with the +30 tons water in it.
And summary of comparison:
–Steel wall thickness: 4 mm or .004 meter circumference 31.4159 x 20 x .004 = 2.513272 times 8000 kg = 20,106.176 kg–
Vs:
circumference 31.4159 x 20 x .001 = 0.628318 times 8000 kg = 5,026.544 kg
4.949 Meters radius or 9.898 diameter is 31.09545782 x 20 = 621.9091564 x .001 = 0.6219091564 times 8000 kg = 4,975.2732512 kg + 5,026.544 = 10,001.8172512 + the plastic: 339.253 kg = 10,341.0702512 or 10,341.1 kg.
This seems better plus there is the 30 tons water mass within it. Though, if put only about 20 ton of water in it, it floats
Have it float 1 meter or so above waterline, waves go in it and “disappear” {they “fall/sink” vertically in the water}.
And doesn’t need the plastic lid. [[But could have lid about 1/2 below top, and big hole in middle, and water come in
and flows down the big hole, which demonstrates and show how water disappears. But don’t need a lid.]] *****
So, What I was scribbling- I do lots that.
Of course this need to anchoring, which I have endless scribbled about.
Plus should use titanium rather than steel {steel- being most corrosive resistant stainless steel- but titanium is best in that
regard, and titinium these days is quite cheap- unlike + 10 years ago.
Also change the 10 meter spacing 5 meter. Or without any spacing
it’s about 1 ton per meter length, 5 space reduce it.
Or my goal is 1 ton or less per meter, and this would be less.
And this design needs a lot less anchoring, and anchoring is high
cost per 1 meter length. So less than 1 ton and cheaper anchoring costs.
And this to stop big waves. For non big waves one have it float at meter above waterline, and rise [add air to it} to say, 2 meters above waterline- to increase “drainage”.
One aspect is I want generally with ocean settlements not to be very high above the ocean- otherwise one could just leave it at 2 meter above waterline.
***** I just remembered I need rigidity of lid- so add the plastic lid for that purpose. Plastic is fairly cheap- add lot.
And one on bottom to also tie anchoring to plastic “frame”.
ffs. get your own site. nobody reads your tripe
Ken
It is a dynamic situation. You try something and see how it works. You monitor the effect and adjust accordingly until you find a good balance.
It is with the whole Covid thing. If you totally lock down a system you can totally stop the spread of a contagious disease but you destroy your economy and the negative effects of one solution are greater than the reward.
If you look at graphs you can see there is noticeable effects from measures taken.
https://tinyurl.com/7jfr9edr
The graphs so exponential growth, when these took place countermeasures were taken. Some restrictions on gatherings and masks. The rates then started to drop. As restrictions were relaxed they went back up. There is obviously real benefit from restrictions in lowering case number, hospitalizations and death. The reality is there is also a cost to the restrictions. Lots of jobs lost, businesses closing up etc. It is a dynamic situation with costs on both sides. The ruling members of society try to find the best balance under the situation.
Norman believes: “The ruling members of society try to find the best balance under the situation.”
What Norman doesn’t understand is that the “ruling members of society” don’t have a clue about science. They avoid reality because the reality is that most are corrupt and not qualified for leadership. A case in point is Biden, who has never had a real job. He can’t do anything constructive. He can’t even finish the sentences he starts. Yet the sheep worship him.
No doubt you think Trump was better.
“It is a dynamic situation. You try something and see how it works.’
Not if there is already a lot of evidence that it doesn’t work.
See ‘Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare SettingsPersonal Protective and Environmental Measures’ Jingyi Xiao et al.
“This study was conducted in preparation for the development of guidelines by the World Health Organization on the use of nonpharmaceutical interventions for pandemic influenza in nonmedical settings.”
Ken
I have read that study before. On the larger scale it seems some mitigation efforts seem to work.
When cases in some areas increase on an exponential scale and hospitals fill up actions are taken like mask mandate, social distancing, limiting crowds etc. The numbers then seem to decline. It does not just happen once in one location. This effect seems to be taking place in multiple locations in many different nations.
So there is a limited study on a small group that indicated masks were not effective in influenza infection rates but the larger study with Covid seems to show that at least some of the actions taken do seem to reverse the growth rate of Covid infections, hoptializations and death. If it took place once it could be natural cycle on the disease but it seems to take place regularly. Maybe you could at least look at this evidence and consider the possibility that some measures do work in reducing covid cases.
Methinks that Gosselin’s TricksZone soon will tell us that in Finland, a harsh winter just has begun: 5 cm snow in Oulu!
From my weather forecasters:
” Such an early onset of winter in September is not uncommon, but has rarely happened in recent years. In the meantime there is hardly anything left of the white splendor, because the temperatures rise to plus 10 degrees. In the night of Wednesday, however, it becomes very fresh again, regionally there is light frost. “
Well it is on the very edge of the 90th percentile but…
https://weatherspark.com/h/td/92822/Historical-Weather-in-Oulu-Finland-Today#Figures-Temperature
Go easy on him, he took a lot of beating lately so he is getting desperate
39.2 deg Fahrenheit: very cold? That is 4 deg Celsius!!!
Mensch Leute! Ihr seid ja echt krank im Kopf.
Warmistas are no good people; Coolistas are even far worse.
Well I don’t plan on living in my fridge.
Genius Eben wrote above
” Go easy on him, he took a lot of beating lately so he is getting desperate ”
Me, a lot of beating? From whom?
From people who aren’t even courageous enough to finish a competition in exactly the same way as they themselves started it about two months ago?
Unlike them, I continue exactly on that same way.
Spatial dependencies in the evaluation of hourly USCRN data when comparing 24 h averages with
– (TMIN+TMAX)/2 aka mean
– median
1. Full average of all data (latitude weighting included)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oOTVFZhIIKtjognF219mucgxRbyd9UEA/view
2. Splitting the data into the usual four seasons
– Winter (DJF)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SnoxIjxfvFYu9-1J3XnTWY5FIN-uNY6z/view
– Spring (MAM)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pR5K_9YuOclOKz1qcJBRLpE0Z9goBbnG/view
– Summer (JJA)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TGSU3gn0eg7yxgReY8aKPYbFiswSI6QW/view
– Fall (SON)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gRsDEeQYwPH4cQpxVHoQ0ubM-dOPnRpd/view
*
The reason to use USCRN hourly instead of daily data is evident: we need to ensure that exactly the same data is used for average, mean and median. This is also the reason why ONLY full 24 h records are considered; any day with less than 24 hourly values is automatically rejected.
*
As we can see, the Quattro Stagione Split shows like the full evaluation, for all four seasons (weakest in spring, strongest in summer)
– an increase of the difference between average and mean on increasing latitudes
and
– a decrease of the difference between average and median on increasing latitudes.
Thus there is no season for which this would not hold.
*
As long as this spatial dependency (and the temporal dependency described earlier) will not be removed by some appropriate regression process on the data, there will be no reason to support the claim that hourly temperature averages of USCRN data based on the median would be more accurate than averages based on the mean of TMIN and TMAX.
Nota bene: it that was the case, USCRN’s daily data would of course contain for each day, near average and mean, the median value of the hourly data, and no one would need considering hourly, let alone subhourly data.
***
By the way, Eben: the links to absolutely disgusting pictures which you publish again and again (and that on this blog which lacks any real moderation), turn you into a forever incompetent person whose comments – in my opinion – nobody here needs to pay any attention to.
Who posts such trash proves himself to live below the belt, and to behave exactly like the three guys on the picture.
“Full average of all data (latitude weighting included)”
Finally Bindidon gets his Daily data correct (without acknowledging that he was wrong before of course), by using USCNRs Daily data. But without any explanation of why Latitude is relatively important and what the rest of the deviations are caused by. Even any acknowledgement that they are site specific in nature.
Hourly and Sub-Hourly he doesn’t like for some reason, however. Knows knows what goes on in his head?
Who knows what goes on in his head?
RLH
” Finally Bindidon gets his Daily data correct (without acknowledging that he was wrong before of course), by using USCNRs Daily data. ”
What is that for a lie, RLH?
If I would rely on USCRN daily data, how then would I be able to present the median data in my graphs? Are you dense?
Unlike you, RLH, I continue to use USCRN’s hourly data.
YOU are using USCRN daily data, because you pretty good understood that when using hourly data and publishing the median values near average and mean, everybody would see that you are not able to contradict me!
Don’t try to manipulate the blog, RLH.
Sure: people like e.g. Robertson and Eben you easily will be able to ‘convince’: they have NO idea of what we are doing.
But other, really knowledgeable persons are watching this discussion, and pretty good can see that you are not ready to any fair competition and comparison of our results.
“Unlike you, RLH, I continue to use USCRN’s hourly data.”
I use whatever is relevant. Sure the sub-hourly data allows me to create daily profiles and medians too should I so wish.
You however are so dogmatic and wrong that you believe that your daily figures, derived as they are from hourly rounded figures, are more accurate than USCRNs data. They aren’t.
Tell me why Tmean and Tmedian are different to the true Taverage and why they are opposite (approximately) in effect. Where one is more accurate, the other isn’t and vice versa. WHY IS THAT?
I accept that if we have enough data (from the sub-hourly figures) then an accumulation into Daily Taverage is more useful than doing so to create a Tmedian. You however think that this is a pissing contest. I don’t. Science is more important that that.
The fact that Tmena and Tmedian are BOTH in error which I long acknowledged is more important that which one is ‘correct’. They are BOTH wrong. WHY IS THAT?
What governs the behavior. Latitude (which for some reason you call a spatial difference thus hiding its true meaning) is some of the reason. About 20%-25% or so. What is the rest? We know that it site specific over long periods so RH is not going to cut it.
I tried Elevation but that does not seem to be the answer. SO WHAT IS?
P.S. I did all the quarterly stuff before, nice to see Bindidon catching up.
Winter
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/latitude-winter.jpg
Fall/Autumn
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/latitude-fall.jpg
Summer
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/latitude-summer.jpg
Spring
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/latitude-spring.jpg
” I did all the quarterly stuff before ”
NO you did NOT.
Because you silently stopped to publish, near plots presenting the difference between averages and means, the plots presenting the difference between averages and… medians.
Do you remember, RLH?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/uscrn-medians-everglades.jpeg
and
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OL1TVQakmjRyavWuNgchTOnlc29L4bpk/view
but…
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1g3DRhowNPzXcpIzG4pKvGENoCtICmkHb/view
*
Suddenly, the median plots – those after all which RLH considered indispensable – disappeared, and were replaced by… a cheap polemic about ridiculous 0.03 C differences between my hourly and his subhourly evaluations of absolute temperatures around 20 C.
Poorish.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-840926
is well before your
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-850229
“Suddenly, the median plots those after all which RLH considered indispensable disappeared”
They didn’t disappear. I recognized that if you have enough data to do a Tmedian you also can do a Taverage, thus making Tmedian unimportant.
I recognize that BOTH Tmean and Tmedian are inaccurate statistics for Taverage. The question is WHY?
They are still there on my blog and have been for months.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/uscrn-combined-carrizozo.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/uscrn-combined-fairbanks.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/07/uscrn-combined-dinosaur.jpeg
Liar.
” … thus making Tmedian unimportant ”
Oh, oh, oh: wonder still can happen.
Now Tmedian, RLH’s ex-genial approach to thoroughly discredit the historical Tmean, and hence all temperature evaluations since their earliest beginning, suddenly no longer plays any role.
How interesting!
Here is a graph showing the monthly averages, for the period Jan 2002 – Jun 2021, of the three evaluations of the hourly data of all 138 active USCRN stations:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11ZoqOljZDzETkMDzITuirU4E8AuXWh5Z/view
The linear fits within the data (used here of course to compare what has happened, and NOT for any kind of prediction of the future), expressed in C / decade:
– mean: -0.38 +- 0.87
– median: -0.40 +- 0.86
– average: -0.39 +- 0.87
Of course: due to the evaluation of absolute data, containing the seasonal background, the standard error is so high that the fits loose any statistical significance.
Only a removal of this background (what Roy Spencer names the annual cycle) could give us an accurate picture of the exact trends.
But we clearly see – eye-balling exceptionally allowed – that the trends for mean, median and average differ by small amounts only.
Moreover, evaluating the quadratic fit using the ax^2 + bx +c coefficients, give a difference of
– 0.3 % for average minus mean;
– 0.7 % for average minus median.
What TREMENDOUS discrepancies!
Maybe RLH finally admits that anyway, he was, concerning USCRN, all the time discussing about the sex of angels.
I’m not sure at all, however.
Aber, um ehrlich zu sein: das ist mir vollkommen egal.
“Now Tmedian, RLH’s ex-genial approach to thoroughly discredit the historical Tmean, and hence all temperature evaluations since their earliest beginning, suddenly no longer plays any role.”
Tell me. If you have enough data to do a Tmedian do you have enough data to do a Taverage instead?
All stats books still say that, if you do nor know the data or distribution ahead of time, then Tmedian is a better choice. I note you don’t challenge this now.
Your graphs that continue to show actual hourly data as well as the differences just serve to show that you want to hide the realities. Like showing absolutes when showing abnormals.
WHY IS TMEAN AND TMEDIAN DIFFERENT IN DIFFERENT WAYS TO TAVERAGE.
Long on stupidities. Short on explanations. As usual.
They say a picture is worth a thousand words. That pic is a perfect depiction of the endless circular argument in here.
You are just pissed because you recognized yourself as being one of the three guys.
https://climateaudit.org/2021/09/15/pages-2019-0-30n-proxies/
PAGES 2019: 0-30N Proxies
“Conclusion
A major reason for looking at the underlying data in proxy reconstructions, aside from being sound statistical practice in general, is that, (1) by definition, a temperature proxy is supposed to be linearly related to temperature; and therefore (2) proxies in a network of actual temperature proxies, according to the definition, should (a) have a reasonably consistent appearance; and (b) look like the reconstruction. This obviously doesnt occur in the PAGES2019 0-20N network.
Secondly, proxies covering the medieval period and earlier are disturbingly sparse in the PAGES2019 0-30N network. Although such series have become much more widely available in the past 15 years or so, PAGES 2019 0-30N contains only one (!) proxy with values prior to AD925. Indeed, it actually reduced the representation of longer (ocean core, speleothem, lake sediment) proxies from Mann et al 2008 and PAGES2017, while dramatically increasing the proportional representation of very short coral proxies. Madness.
Finally, the network is wildly inhomogeneous over time. In the past two centuries, it is dominated by trending coral proxies, with only a few nondescript or declining long proxies. Any form of regression (or like multivariate method) of trending temperatures against a large network in the instrumental period will yield an almost perfectly fitting reconstruction in the calibration period if the network is large enough. But when the network is limited to the few long proxies (and especially the singleton proxy extending to the first century), the fit of the regression (or multivariate method) will be very poor and the predictive value of any reconstruction negligible.
Briffa rightly sneered at Manns hyperventilating claims in respect to the few uninformative tropical (0-30N) proxies in the Mann et al 1998-99 network. The same criticism applies to the PAGES 2019 0-30N network.”
It is pretty easy to discredit the scientific work made by several persons with a few thoughts published on a private blog.
When McIntyre writes a really scientific, perfectly thought out contradiction to the PAGES2K paper, and publishes it – even without official peer-review process – on some online journal, then he will obtain the credibility he currently lacks.
If you think that Steve McIntyre is wrong, have the courage to dispute with him on his blog.
At least he has his own Wiki page
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_McIntyre
The Auditor never went at Nick’s to settle his scores, dummy.
Let’s wonder why.
1.
” If you think that Steve McIntyre is wrong, have the courage to dispute with him on his blog. ”
1. You, RLH, who spent lots of time in discrediting my little USCRN evaluation work using complertely flawed arguments, are the very least person who should talk on this blog abot ‘courage’.
2. Unlike you, who spends his time in explaining all people whose meaning differs from yours that they are wrong, I say to people that they are wrong ONLY if I am able to scientifically contradict them.
I can’t.
3. And I repeat, because you manifestly weren’t able to grasp what I wrote:
” It is pretty easy to discredit the scientific work made by several persons with a few thoughts published on a private blog.
When McIntyre writes a really scientific, perfectly thought out contradiction to the PAGES2K paper, and publishes it even without official peer-review process on some online journal, then he will obtain the credibility he currently lacks.
*
What the heck does that have to do with me, RLH?
I was speaking about McIntyre’s lack of courage to scientifically contradict these authors.
And as usual, you turn the stuff into something completely different.
You boast and brag continuously.
About how only you can collect data.
How only you can construct graphs.
How only you can do quartiles (aka seasons).
How only you can decide what is relevant.
Only you can criticize people where they most probably won’t ever see it.
Only you.
” About how only you can collect data. ”
No. The contrary is the case.
You perniciously pretended that I wouldn’t be able to do that.
I never pretended you wouldn’t.
” How only you can construct graphs. ”
No. You constructed dozens and dozens of illegible dot based graphs with as only goal to show how perfect your low pass filter is. ”
” How only you can do quartiles (aka seasons). ”
No. You were first doing, with intentionally omitting the median stuff, and I replied with similar graphs containing the median stuff. I never pretended them to be better.
” How only you can decide what is relevant. ”
No.
You – and no one else, RLH – decided months ago on this blog that Tmedian is more relevant than Tmean for temperature evaluations.
And… you UTTERLY failed.
You, RLH, are here, since a few months, the one who wants to show us he is always right – against all odds.
A psychoanalyst would say that you manifestly suffer under what is termed the ‘primus inter pares’ syndrome.
You suffer from arrogance. All the time.
> A major reason for looking at the underlying data in proxy reconstructions, aside from being sound statistical practice in general
Tell that to econometrists.
Hi Willard. Idiot.
“Econometrics is the application of statistical methods to the quantification and critical assessment of hypothetical economic relationships using data.”
And that has relevance to climate how?
You really are new to Climateball, dummy:
https://climateaudit.org/econometric-references/
You think that
https://climateaudit.org/econometric-references/
helps your case?
Yep.
Tell me, dummy: what do you think is my case?
That you are an idiot. Plain for everybody to see.
You can’t say that pointing out the Auditor’s own econometric references won’t help my case if you can’t spell out my case, dummy.
1.
Settled.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
That’s where I’m eternally right, Kiddopup.
Kiddo cannot follow the debate, and vents his frustration by constructing an imaginary win.
Willard projects.
No U
s.t.v.w.x.y.z.
In your own mind only. You don’t get to decide what others think. Correctly.
I would never want to dictate what others think. They have the right to carry on being wrong for the rest of their lives, and I am sure they will.
Persists in being wrong all you like. Others who are more sensible will consider you ignorant. Quite correctly.
Anyone thinking sensibly about “orbital motion without axial rotation” will come to the correct conclusion – it is as per the “moon on the left” in the below GIF, and not the “moon on the right”.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
> Anyone thinking sensibly
A Master Argument might be needed here, Kiddo.
Do you happen to have one?
It’s as simple as a ball-on-a-string. The ball is NOT rotating about its axis. It always has the same side facing the inside of its orbit.
It’s the same basic motion as Moon.
A ball-on-a-string is only relevant to a ball-on-a-string.
Braindead idiots like RLH can’t learn.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-781680
Clint R is a flat earther in all but name.
rlh…”A ball-on-a-string is only relevant to a ball-on-a-string.”
***
Methinks thee has been hit on the head too many times by an old, T-panel, soggy, soccer ball. Early, onset, perhaps.
Only an idiot could think that all of the evidence shows that the Moon is not rotating on its own axis. But go right ahead, in your tiny, tiny clique. Defy science.
Settled.
It is settled that you are wrong indeed.
A cannonball fired without spin, from a cannon on top of a very tall mountain – a la “Newton’s Cannonball” travels 100 meters along and above a track around the equator. If an X is painted on the bottom of the cannonball before launch, you would expect it to remain pointing towards the Earth over the course of that 100 meters. Right? Now the fired cannonball travels a mile along the track. You would still expect the X to remain pointing towards the Earth throughout the journey. Right? Now a fired cannonball travels 1000 miles. What then? Now it is fired so that it completes an orbit around the whole planet. How about now? When do you believe that the ball starts magically rotating, so that the X always faces a fixed star? After 100 meters…a mile…1000 miles…?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball
“If an X is painted on the bottom of the cannonball before launch, you would expect it to remain pointing towards the Earth over the course of that 100 meters. Right? Now the fired cannonball travels a mile along the track. You would still expect the X to remain pointing towards the Earth throughout the journey. Right? Now a fired cannonball travels 1000 miles. What then? Now it is fired so that it completes an orbit around the whole planet. How about now? When do you believe that the ball starts magically rotating, so that the X always faces a fixed star? After 100 meters…a mile…1000 miles…?”
This is all intuition-based. Its ‘You would expect…..right?’
And again, this intuition is based on experience with Terrestrial transportation.
But what’s missing is logic, and mechanism, that applies to transport in the vacuum of space.
So again, your whole basis for the argument being ‘settled’ is your intuition, and faulty analogies.
Of course physics and logic show that your intuition and analogies are insufficient to understand the problem.
“When do you believe that the ball starts magically rotating, so that the X always faces a star”
Here is the logical flaw.
‘No rotation’ means wrt to the stars, as you have acknowledged.
So the magical start of rotation is required to make the X always face the Earth.
P.S: RLH, don’t forget that Tim admitted the force from the cannon produces a torque about the axis that is external to the cannonball, the axis at the center of the Earth:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-847997
DREMT: Don’t forget that you are wrong.
So you are saying Tim is wrong about there being a torque about the external axis? If there is a torque, and the object goes on to move in a circle about that axis, I think it is reasonable to assume that the object would be rotating about the external axis. If the cannonball is rotating about the external axis, and not rotating about an internal axis (as there is no torque to produce any rotation about the ball’s own internal axis), then the ball moves as per the “moon on the left”.
“don’t forget that Tim admitted the force from the cannon produces a torque about the axis ”
And don’t forget this is again a dishonest debate tactic. Misrepresenting and cherry-picking Tim’s argument.
He explained how this torque only produces orbital angular momentum, not ROTATION.
If you use physics words, torque, or angular momentum, then are we to assume that fully you understand the physics involved?
We know that is not the case.
If you use physics words and misinterpret their meaning then that just becomes a means of obfuscation.
There is a distinction between orbital angular momentum and spin angular momentum.
Orbital angular momentum is mvr. It is simply a consequence of an object having momentum, mv, and moving perpendicular to a radius, r from a point. No rotation of the object is required.
Thus both the MOTR and the MOTL have orbital angular momentum. Only the MOTL has spin angular momentum and rotation wrt the stars.
The MOTR has no spin angular momentum, nor rotation wrt the stars. Its motion is identical to the cannonball’s motion.
No response from RLH
No response from DREMT.
Note to readers: I have not responded directly to Nate for over two years, and continue to refuse to do so. Despite this, he continues to attempt to interact with me as if this is not the case.
Now poor Nate gets confused about angular momentum!
It’s funny when he tries to apply wiki-physics to reality.
Note to readers: Clint R and DREMT are ‘flat earth’ idiots.
“I think it is reasonable to assume that the object would be rotating about the external axis.”
Whilst it is attached to an object through a fixed arm, such as being on the surface of the object or the string of a hammer throw then it rotates about the center of that rotation/person. As soon as the physical connection is broken, the object then continues to rotate about its own internal axis. Just like the hammer throw does if you watch it.
…but anyway, back to the point I was making…
The only point you’re making is quite simple, Kiddo:
(SHORT) The Moon cannot spin because I don’t see it spinning.
Please stop trolling.
Willard, please stop trolling.
Note to readers: DREMT responds to me often, when he thinks he has a good response. He pretends he is responding to others.
Eg.
Nate:
“And this key difference between a ball-on-a-string and an orbiting planet is on full display for the Earth, which is spinning on its axis as it orbits.
No balls-on-strings can do that! The string wont allow the complete freedom of the ball to rotate, the way gravity allows a planet to do.”
DREMT:
“Look at the Earth, both orbiting and rotating on its own axis. The point of the analogy is not that the presence of the string prevents internal axis rotation (although it does). The point of the analogy is…”
When he has absolutely NO sensible answers, like now, he invokes this childish and false excuse that he is not ‘responding to me’.
Despite this, he continues to attempt to interact with me as if this is not the case.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
If you could stop whining, that’d be great.
#2
Willard, please stop trolling.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team
” Anyone thinking sensibly about “orbital motion without axial rotation” will come to the correct conclusion – it is as per the “moon on the left” in the below GIF, and not the “moon on the right”. ”
Yes of course!
But… your problem is that unfortunately, this hypothesis concerning an “orbital motion without axial rotation” is completely useless.
You just do not want to admit it, and will never do.
Because you, unlike me, never read from beginning till end any work of any astronomer who computed Moon’s rotation about its polar axis.
You refer on nothing more than poor, shortcut assumptions emitted by Nikola Tesla, and replicated ad nauseam by a few Serbian scientists who (still) venerate him to such an extent that they were and still would be ready to write any nonsense.
The most terrible example was Vujicic, who dared to contradict Newton concerning the exact measurement of gravity.
*
No one will ever convince you, me the least.
Doesn’t matter. Weiter so, Pseudomoderator!
“”[DREMT] Anyone thinking sensibly about “orbital motion without axial rotation” will come to the correct conclusion – it is as per the “moon on the left” in the below GIF, and not the “moon on the right”
[BINDIDON] Yes of course!”
Well, I’m glad you agree. How you can then still think the moon rotates on its own axis is a mystery to us all, but good for you, anyway.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team
” Well, Im glad you agree. ”
I was sure you would intentionally misinterpret my words.
” How you can then still think the moon rotates on its own axis is a mystery to us all, but good for you, anyway. ”
I simply have read numerous documents you will never read.
The mystery has a name: to rely on real science.
OK, so I don’t accidentally misinterpret you again:
Do you think “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the “moon on the left”, or the “moon on the right”?
binny…”You refer on nothing more than poor, shortcut assumptions emitted by Nikola Tesla…”
***
Not true. Dremt came up with Tesla’s explanation but Tesla based it on kinetic energy. We are basing our truth on a different scientific basis.
Not even NASA can bring themselves to admit they are wrong. They agreed with me in principle that the Moon does not rotate on its axis from our perspective on Earth but maintained they measure its rotation wrt the stars.
As we non-spinner have demonstrated by several applications of math and physics, what NASA is calling rotation is actually translation with no local rotation.
I am sure that real engineers at NASA would agree. The myth propaganda is put out by a NASA PR team.
“Not even NASA can bring themselves to admit they are wrong.”
Because they are not wrong. The Moon rotates once on its own axis per orbit of the Earth.
“Do you think orbital motion without axial rotation is as per the moon on the left, or the moon on the right?”
Which one keeps one face pointed towards a fixed star? Thus fulfilling Newtons requirements of no motion without energy input.
RLH keeps making the same mistakes. He can’t learn.
He believes the moon on the right is not rotating because it keeps one side facing a distant star. He refuses to understand what “orbital motion without axial rotation” looks like. It looks like a ball-on-a-string.
Like Bindidon, RLH believes he can pervert reality by invoking the name of a great scientist. But, again like Bindidon, RLH just shows himself to be just another cult idiot.
“He refuses to understand what ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ looks like. It looks like a ball-on-a-string.”
Every time you guys declare a mantra like this, makes it more clear that it is purely a ‘belief’ thing, not a logical, factual thing.
Your little clique has ‘every right to think differently than the universe’, but you are not fooling anyone that you have logically, factually made the case. In this sense your clique is quite similar to Flat Earthers.
For instance here, you keep harping on ‘the ball on the string’. That is an analogy, different from the real situation in several important ways.
The ball has a string attached to the surface, that pulls the attachment face into alignment to the center (that applies torque).
Gravity, OTOH, pulls on the COM of a ball. That has no alignment effect, no torque, like the string.
You can’t keep ignoring those differences, and just assume they don’t matter, when they clearly do.
And this key difference between a ball-on-a-string and an orbiting planet is on full display for the Earth, which is spinning on its axis as it orbits.
No balls-on-strings can do that! The string won’t allow the complete freedom of the ball to rotate, the way gravity allows a planet to do.
Nate: Although I may disagree with you on some things, on this I totally agree with you.
“He refuses to understand what orbital motion without axial rotation looks like. It looks like a ball-on-a-string.”
So rotation about an internal axis when in an orbit about another body is not rotation at all and has no rotational inertia associated with it. Sure.
A ball-on-a-string, with its attachment to the surface of the ball, has nothing to do with orbital mechanics, which operates on the COGs.
RLH, you don’t even get the ball on a string. Firstly, nobody is saying that an orbiting object cannot rotate on its own axis. Look at the Earth, both orbiting and rotating on its own axis. The point of the analogy is not that the presence of the string prevents internal axis rotation (although it does). The point of the analogy is that an object that is “orbiting without rotating on its own axis” moves as per the “moon on the left”, with one face always oriented towards the inside of the orbit. Just like the ball on a string.
Secondly, when the ball on a string is being swung around, the string is taut and the force is acting through the center of mass of the ball, despite the string being attached to the outside of the ball. The string attachment is not applying a torque to the ball. The only torque applied is about the axis that is external to the ball. The ball is rotating about an external axis, and not about an internal axis.
Poor Nate makes the same mistake as the others. He can’t understand the ball-on-a-string is how an object orbits without rotating about its axis. Only one side faces the inside of the orbit. It’s like Moon, or a runner on a circular track, or the wooden horse on a MGR.
They can’t understand any of this.
This is what TEAM does. Valid points, here that the string doesn’t allow rotation makes it a FAULTY analogy, is simply ignored as unimportant.
“being swung around, the string is taut and the force is acting through the center of mass of the ball, despite the string being attached to the outside of the ball. The string attachment is not applying a torque to the ball. The only torque applied is about the axis that is external to the ball.”
Yes when an orbiting object has axial rotation, it simply continues, no torque required, no string required.
Where the ball on the string model fails is for elliptical orbits and the cannonball fired without rotation. Nothing forces it into alignment, there is no string. Gravity does not act like the string. Thus it moves like MOTR.
Poor braindead Nate continues making the same mistake. He cant understand the ball-on-a-string ONLY applies to an object orbiting without rotating about its axis. Only one side faces the inside of the orbit. Its like Moon, or a runner on a circular track, or the wooden horse on a MGR.
The idiots can’t understand and can’t learn.
Then you agree that it doest apply to Newtons cannonball, or our Moon with an elliptical orbit?
The model of a ball-on-a-string applies perfectly to an object orbting, but not rotating about its axis. One side always faces the inside of the orbit. Examples are Moon, the wooden horse, a runner, or choo-choo train, on a circular track.
“The point of the analogy is that an object that is “orbiting without rotating on its own axis” moves as per the “moon on the left”, with one face always oriented towards the inside of the orbit.”
That is invalid. It would require a force to turn the Moon on its axis to always face the Earth. There is none. Why is the Moon different to the Earth? Both are bodies controlled into an orbit by gravity from another body. Why does the Earth rotate on its axis but the Moon not?
“The model of a ball-on-a-string applies perfectly to an object orbting, but not rotating about its axis”
A ball-on-a-string applies only to a ball-on-a-string. Nothing else. and certainly not bodies in orbits around other bodies.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-852021
In any case, is the Moon orbiting the Earth or the Sun?
https://www.universetoday.com/116158/why-doesnt-the-sun-steal-the-moon/
Quick, change the subject.
Seems like the TEAM wants to have it both ways.
“He cant understand the ball-on-a-string ONLY applies to an object orbiting without rotating about its axis. Only one side faces the inside of the orbit.”
And
It only applies when the “the string is taut and the force is acting through the center of mass of the ball, despite the string being attached to the outside of the ball. The string attachment is not applying a torque to the ball. The only torque applied is about the axis that is external to the ball. The ball is rotating about an external axis, and not about an internal axis.”
IOW, it only applies to circular orbits, the string can’t stretch. It only applies to orbits which don’t speed up and slow down in their orbit and have no Libration. It only applies to objects that already have rotation rates that match orbital period.
IOW it doesnt apply to OUR Moon, and it doesnt apply to the fired cannonball.
Here’s the Ball-on-string version of the fired cannonball: a tether ball.
A tether ball is ‘fired’ by whacking it while the string is slightly slack, and giving it linear momentum.
What happens then? The string becomes taught, and yanks the ball into orbit AND yanks its orientation into alignment with the string. It applies a torque on the ball!
In the Newtons cannonball version, gravity pulls the ball into orbit, but it cannot yank the ball into alignment with the Earth’s radius because, unlike the string, it cannot apply any torque.
The more poor Nate struggles, the more tangled up he gets. He keeps trying to twist and distort, so he ends up arguing with himself.
That’s why this is so much fun.
“Quick, change the subject.”
Not changing the subject at all. I am asking you if the Moon is orbiting the Earth or the Sun?
“keeps trying to twist and distort, so he ends up arguing with himself.
Thats why this is so much fun.”
As usual these days, Clint tosses ad-homs, but has no answers, no scientific rebuttal.
He finds pure trolling more fun.
“Now poor Nate gets confused about angular momentum!
It’s funny when he tries to apply wiki-physics to reality.”
Angular momentum is the rotational equivalent of linear momentum. That is what certain people need to remember. The rotational equivalent. Not translational equivalent.
Oh look. DREMT is baiting me. How strange.
“Angular momentum is the rotational equivalent of linear momentum. That is what certain people need to remember. The rotational equivalent. Not translational equivalent.”
Interesting. Can a non-rotating just translating particle have angular momentum?
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html
The answer seems to be YES.
Angular momentum of a particle is L = rxp, where r and p are vector radius from particle to a point, and vector momentum, mv.
If r and p are perpendicular, then L = mvr.
So the MOTR is a collection of particles, total mass M, all with the same v, with total momentum, p = Mv, and average radius from the center, r.
Thus its angular momentum is Mvr. Even though it is just translating and has no rotation, as DREMT agrees. This is known as orbital angular momentum.
Or is Bob correct that it has rotation?
“Now poor Nate gets confused about angular momentum!
It’s funny when he tries to apply wiki-physics to reality.”
Angular momentum is the rotational equivalent of linear momentum. That is what certain people need to remember. The rotational equivalent. Not translational equivalent. So, if we go with rotation, even my stalker agrees that the MOTL can be described as rotating about an external axis and not rotating about an internal axis. So that would have orbital angular momentum and no spin angular momentum. If we add internal axis rotation to the MOTL, in the opposite direction to the orbital motion, at a rate of once per orbit, we get motion like the MOTR. So the MOTR can be described as rotating about an external axis, and rotating about an internal axis. So that would have orbital angular momentum and spin angular momentum, just of opposite sign.
“Angular momentum is the rotational equivalent of linear momentum. That is what certain people need to remember. The rotational equivalent. Not translational equivalent.”
Sure, I remember. Others need to learn and the actual physics definition of angular momentum and use it properly, rather than just making qualitative statements about it. After all physics is quantitative science.
“So, if we go with rotation, even my stalker agrees that the MOTL can be described as rotating about an external axis and not rotating about an internal axis.”
Don’t misrepresent or cherry pick, that is not a good look for you.
I said that the MOTL can be described either as a (1) pure rotation about an external axis, OR (2) a translation (orbit) plus axial rotation.
“So that would have orbital angular momentum and no spin angular momentum.”
No not correct. If you calculate its angular momentum using (2) we see that it has orbital angular momentum Mvr, just like the MOTR, plus spin angular momentum.
That DOES NOT CHANGE simply by describing it as (1).
“If we add internal axis rotation to the MOTL, in the opposite direction to the orbital motion, at a rate of once per orbit, we get motion like the MOTR. So the MOTR can be described as rotating about an external axis, and rotating about an internal axis. So that would have orbital angular momentum and spin angular momentum, just of opposite sign.”
No. False premise that the MOTL has only orbital angular momentum. Sorry that is incorrect.
The MOTR has only translation, and only orbital angular momentum. This is what the definition of angular momentum shows.
You can’t undo what the physics and math show, with hand waving or qualitative pronouncements.
“Now poor Nate gets confused about angular momentum!
It’s funny when he tries to apply wiki-physics to reality.”
Angular momentum is the rotational equivalent of linear momentum. That is what certain people need to remember. The rotational equivalent. Not translational equivalent. So, if we go with rotation, even my stalker agrees that the MOTL can be described as rotating about an external axis and not rotating about an internal axis. So that would have orbital angular momentum and no spin angular momentum. If we add internal axis rotation to the MOTL, in the opposite direction to the orbital motion, at a rate of once per orbit, we get motion like the MOTR. So the MOTR can be described as rotating about an external axis, and rotating about an internal axis. So that would have orbital angular momentum and spin angular momentum, just of opposite sign.
Nope.
What is the point of arguing with physics and math, if in the end you simply ignore its results and replace it with hand-waving qualitative pronouncements?
Here is a hand-waving pronouncement right here:
“the MOTL can be described as rotating about an external axis and not rotating about an internal axis. So that would have orbital angular momentum and no spin angular momentum. ”
How is any physics showing that?
Look in here for help
https://www.iitg.ac.in/physics/fac/saurabh/ph101/AngularMomentumCntd.pdf
“The angular momentum relative to the origin of a body can be
found by treating the body like a point mass located at CM
and finding the angular momentum of this point mass relative to the origin plus the angular momentum of the body relative to CM.”
IOW for MOTL. point mass L = Mvr. L around COM = Iw, where w is angular velocity.
Total L = Mvr + Iw for MOTL.
for MOTR, there is NO w,
so Total L = Mvr for MOTR.
“Now poor Nate gets confused about angular momentum!
It’s funny when he tries to apply wiki-physics to reality.”
Angular momentum is the rotational equivalent of linear momentum. That is what certain people need to remember. The rotational equivalent. Not translational equivalent. So, if we go with rotation, even my stalker agrees that the MOTL can be described as rotating about an external axis and not rotating about an internal axis. So that would have orbital angular momentum and no spin angular momentum. If we add internal axis rotation to the MOTL, in the opposite direction to the orbital motion, at a rate of once per orbit, we get motion like the MOTR. So the MOTR can be described as rotating about an external axis, and rotating about an internal axis. So that would have orbital angular momentum and spin angular momentum, just of opposite sign.
Soo DREMT tries to engage with me. Tries to use physics.
Oh ok, lets see what physics actually shows.
Darn, it disagrees with his beliefs.
So he declares his own hand-waving result, which disagrees with real physics.
He repeats beliefs over and over and over, as if that somehow changes physics.
Stops using real physics. Stops trying to engage.
This is how it goes.
“Now poor Nate gets confused about angular momentum!
It’s funny when he tries to apply wiki-physics to reality.”
Angular momentum is the rotational equivalent of linear momentum. That is what certain people need to remember. The rotational equivalent. Not translational equivalent. So, if we go with rotation…
“Angular momentum is the rotational equivalent of linear momentum.”
And how can physics use this vague statement to solve a real world problem?
It can’t. It has to use laws and equations.
And the equation for angular momentum is quite explict.
L = r x p.
The equation for angular momentum applied to the Moon on the Right, which is Translating around the center of the planet, but not Rotating, gives
L = Mvr.
“Angular momentum is the rotational equivalent of linear momentum. That is what certain people need to remember. The rotational equivalent. Not translational equivalent.”
So how does DREMT account for his statement, “not the translational equivalent” when clearly we have the calculation showing angular momentum for the MOTR which is translating but not rotating?
And his argument that the fired cannonball is given angular momentum , therefore it must have ROTATION, is proven by this counter example, to be simply wrong. The MOTR has angular momentum but NO ROTATION.
“Now poor Nate gets confused about angular momentum!
It’s funny when he tries to apply wiki-physics to reality.”
Angular momentum is the rotational equivalent of linear momentum. That is what certain people need to remember. The rotational equivalent. Not translational equivalent. So, if we go with rotation, even my stalker agrees that the MOTL can be described as rotating about an external axis and not rotating about an internal axis. So that would have orbital angular momentum and no spin angular momentum. If we add internal axis rotation to the MOTL, in the opposite direction to the orbital motion, at a rate of once per orbit, we get motion like the MOTR. So the MOTR can be described as rotating about an external axis, and rotating about an internal axis. So that would have orbital angular momentum and spin angular momentum, just of opposite sign.
“So that would have orbital angular momentum and no spin angular momentum.”
Again DREMT simply is in denial of what the physics equation for angular momentum actually gives.
He again fails to understand that to make an argument with physics, one has to understand physics.
He fails to understand that physics uses equations and math, because it is a quantitative science.
The fact that he draws conclusions that match his beliefs, without using a single equation makes it clear to all that he is simply a fraud, and a troll.
Yet he is baffled as to why he gets ridiculed..
“Now…”
And when he is cornered and plainly has no facts to back his claims, he resorts to extremely childish behavior.
“Now poor…”
“…Nate gets confused about angular momentum!
It’s funny when he tries to apply wiki-physics to reality.”
Angular momentum is the rotational equivalent of linear momentum. That is what certain people need to remember. The rotational equivalent. Not translational equivalent. So, if we go with rotation, even my stalker agrees that the MOTL can be described as rotating about an external axis and not rotating about an internal axis. So that would have orbital angular momentum and no spin angular momentum. If we add internal axis rotation to the MOTL, in the opposite direction to the orbital motion, at a rate of once per orbit, we get motion like the MOTR. So the MOTR can be described as rotating about an external axis, and rotating about an internal axis. So that would have orbital angular momentum and spin angular momentum, just of opposite sign.
Lots of repeated sciency words.
Lots of same hand waving.
Same declared ‘truths’ that don’t agree with physics results, or any source.
Still no equations… because equations are not so easily misrepresented, misinterpreted, distorted, spun.
“Now poor Nate gets confused about angular momentum!
It’s funny when he tries to apply wiki-physics to reality.”
Angular momentum is the rotational equivalent of linear momentum. That is what certain people need to remember. The rotational equivalent. Not translational equivalent. So, if we go with rotation, even my stalker agrees that the MOTL can be described as rotating about an external axis and not rotating about an internal axis. So that would have orbital angular momentum and no spin angular momentum. If we add internal axis rotation to the MOTL, in the opposite direction to the orbital motion, at a rate of once per orbit, we get motion like the MOTR. So the MOTR can be described as rotating about an external axis, and rotating about an internal axis. So that would have orbital angular momentum and spin angular momentum, just of opposite sign.
Yes, pups, the rotation of the Moon has been settled science for hundreds of years. Except in the irrational minds of lunatics.
E. Swanson, most people learn to use a mop without instruction.
How many years have you been in mop school now?
Clint R, many people learn in college that the 1LOT is valid as Norman used it 4:27pm.
How many years has it been now that Clint R has avoided passing a college level course in thermodynamics?
Ball4, I’m glad to see you sucking up to Norman.
Most here recognize that he’s an incompetent, uneducated loser. He even uses fake names like “Norma”, “Lori”, “Nomran”, etc.
Maybe your idolatry will boost his self-esteem?
swannie…”Yes, pups, the rotation of the Moon has been settled science for hundreds of years. Except in the irrational minds of lunatics”.
***
You calling Tesla a lunatic? Figures.
Gordo, Tesla had nothing to do with NASA’s serious work to orbit satellites and travel to the Moon and back. The 21st century “non spinner” cult members around here are the lunatics and that includes you.
E. Swanson, your problem is you have no knowledge of the issues. You can insult and troll, but you can’t understand any of the science. You couldn’t solve the easy barbell problem. You have no workable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
You’re as incompetent as the rest of your cult. You’re all foam but no beer.
pups continues to display it’s gross ignorance of dynamics, such as the fact that the cannonball rotates at the same rate as the Earth. pups is so ignorant that it doesn’t know it’s ignorant, a classic Dunning-Kruger case.
E. Swanson, your problem is you have no knowledge of the issues. You can insult and troll, but you can’t understand any of the science. You couldn’t solve the easy barbell problem. You have no workable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
Orbital motion is not covered by “dynamics”. It is its own science. Orbiting does not cause axial rotation. You don’t understand any of this.
You’re as incompetent as the rest of your cult. You’re blind in one eye and can’t see out of the other.
Bindidon:
WHY ARE TMEAN AND TMEDIAN DIFFERENT IN DIFFERENT (AND OPPOSITE) WAYS TO TAVERAGE.
RLH
I have shown all the stuff you need to understand.
Could you please come to an end with this endless urge in “being better than all others”, me of course included?
Sorry, stop stalking me all the time.
I am DEFINITELY sad of this.
No answer as usual. Just an arrogant reply.
“I have shown all the stuff you need to understand.”
I.e. you don’t know the answer.
“stop stalking me all the time.”
You reply and start threads continuously mentioning me by name (or initials). Who is stalking who one might ask.
Bindidon:
WHY ARE TMEAN AND TMEDIAN DIFFERENT IN DIFFERENT (AND OPPOSITE) WAYS TO TAVERAGE.
Still asking.
“For many years, the standard mantra in news stories about hurricanes and heat waves was that no single event can be linked to climate change, though scientists say global warming makes events like this more common. Thanks to Friederike Otto and Geert Jan van Oldenborgh and their colleagues at the World Weather Attribution project, we can now speak much more confidently: this summer, for instance, when a massive heat wave shattered records across the Pacific Northwest, their team quickly issued a deep statistical analysis that concluded the soaring heat was virtually impossible without human-caused climate change.
The pairshes German; hes Dutchhave assembled researchers from around the world capable of rapid reaction, in contrast to the equally crucial years-long analyses of global systems performed by the scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That speed means that people reading about our accelerating string of disasters increasingly get the most important information of all: its coming from us.”
(TIME)
The rapid respond climate shyster team ,I brought the news a while ago
studentb…”…their team quickly issued a deep statistical analysis that concluded the soaring heat was virtually impossible without human-caused climate change”.
***
Rubbish science. There was soaring heat in the 1930s and far more heat waves than we encounter now.
Besides, I was in the middle of the Pacific Northwest heat dome and besides the fact it occurred in late June rather than late July, or August, was the only think I noticed out of normal.
The heat domes were nothing more than unusual weather patterns and there is absolutely nothing in AGW theory to account for sudden rises of temperatures that sustain for a longer period than usual.
It should be noted that despite the heat domes, the global average dropped slightly.
NOAA claimed they were related to La Nina effects in the southern Pacific. See…I don’t always knock NOAA.
Just because a group of people have said that it is all down to ‘climate change’ does not make it true.
Have they accounted for the FACT that global temperatures have in fact been going down for the last few years and not rising as expected? Of course not. That goes against the narrative.
The heat is hiding somewhere, possibly under the bed, and is creping out to make things worse all the time.
” going down for the last few years and not rising as expected?”
I see.
So we are going to ignore the well known effects of ENSO, and put it down to a failure of AGW?
So you admit that local, equatorial factors like PDO/ENSO (but not AMO which doesn’t exist) effect Global temperatures but don’t accept that accumulations of them can mean that long term trends can then develop. ‘Noise’ always evens out in the end according to you even though random walk and small offsets to it show that is not the case in reality.
Except when that accumulation is always positive and upwards of course.
So is the upcoming La Nina later this year/early next year going to mean that Global temperatures fall?
“‘Noise’ always evens out in the end according to you even though random walk and small offsets to it show that is not the case in reality.”
ENSO is well known to be cyclic. It returns to equilibrium. You know that.
It does not act like a random walk. That’s not an appropriate model.
The effect of ENSO on global temperature is well known. To ignore it makes no sense.
Its a confounding variable. All studies of cause and effect have to worry about those.
“It does not act like a random walk. Thats not an appropriate model.”
The random walk bit, when applied to temperatures, is the weather. The bias to the random walk is ENSO (and other ocean cycles).
In any one decade/centenary we will have more of La Nina’s than El Nino’s and vice versa in ENSO.
So we should expect than over long time periods the random walk of temperatures will first go one way and then the other. Much like the long term cyclic behavior of PDO and AMO (which doesn’t exist) demonstrates.
SOI
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/soi.jpeg
PDO
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/pdo-2.jpeg
AMO
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/amo-1.jpeg
Nate: I noticed you didn’t reply on this.
So is the upcoming La Nina later this year/early next year going to mean that Global temperatures fall?
Why is it not a random walk?
In a random walk, the system can randomly wander off and stay far from equilibrium for extended periods.
Thats not what ENSO does, nor weather. We don’t wander into winter in the middle of summer. We return quickly to equilibrium.
OTOH the GHG forcing has not returned to pre-industrial levels. It is setting a new equilibrium level that is maintained or increases.
“In a random walk, the system can randomly wander off and stay far from equilibrium for extended periods.”
If we had a situation where we had a continuous set of high pressures over region, then it would get hotter in summer and colder in winter. Low pressures are likely opposite.
Most random walks, without any biasing factors, stay concentrated about a center.
Add in a small centralizing factor, such as occurs in climate on Earth, means that is definitely so.
That does not mean that the system cannot stray far from a center if a long term underlying cyclic bias occurs. Such as occurs in both PDO and AMO.
“GHG forcing”
IF the GHG forcing is the predominant reason for the increase in global temperatures and Nature (and long term cycles it contains) have nothing to do with it.
I believe that Nature has more responsibility that you do. How much is the real question.
For cyclic phenomena a RW is inappropriate model. There is a return force. This certainly applies to ENSO. It doesnt build up over time. What it seems to have
is periods of stronger + or stronger -.
“I believe that Nature has more responsibility that you do”
Why is belief involved?
Science is an evidence thing.
“Science is an evidence thing.”
And the science is not settled no matter how often you claim it is.
“What it seems to have is periods of stronger+ or stronger-”
Which for a time will exhibit a trend likewise.
Much like PDO and AMO do.
SOI
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/soi.jpeg
PDO
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/pdo-2.jpeg
AMO
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/amo-1.jpeg
Do you expect those trends to have an effect on global temperatures. Now that all/both of them are headed away from where the global temperatures were the hottest?
“Do you expect those trends to have an effect on global temperatures. ”
Again, science is evidence based.
We have good evidence that ENSO (SOI) affects Global T, and we have pretty good idea of the magnitude of it.
AMO, and PDO?
AMO is the temperature of the N. Atlantic and it affects surrounding land, and thus IS a part of Global Temperature.
Does it go beyond that? IDK. Is it natural or anthro?
Some evidence that it is anthro in the 20th century.
PDO? IDK
What is the evidence telling you about how much AMO and PDO is affecting Global T?
What studentb keeps posting here has notghing to do with science, it is classic media propaganda designed for for masses of asses,
is he stupid not to know what it is, or does he thinks we are stupid not to know it.
https://youtu.be/-WpFzTplp28
“Rubbish science. There was soaring heat in the 1930s and far more heat waves than we encounter now.”
Sure. The soaring heat was concentrated in the Great Plains, where the Dust Bowl happened. Everywhere else in N. America did not reach record temps.
https://tinyurl.com/58h9yvsy
The Dust Bowl was anthropogenic. It was human-caused. The effect of farming and plowing approaches that allowed the soil to dry out much faster over vast stretches of the Great Plains.
That facilitated higher temperatures and further drying, and the soil turned to dust and blew away.
Without humans and plowing, the deep-rooted prairie grass would have kept the soil in place and moister, and the temperatures moderated.
Regions of the USA experienced things but the overall USA didn’t. In fact their temperature went down.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uscrn-temps-since-2016.jpg
Pacific Northwest Heat Dome was due to Jet Stream. An omega pattern trapped a bubble of dry air that kept getting hotter.
Meanwhile the rest of the continent was experiencing lower than normal temperatures.
You’re going to have to explain how an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere affects the Jet Stream.
Ken throws out an easy pitch. Search: [Francis “wavy jet stream”]
I don’t find Francis to have a compelling argument; it doesn’t make sense in the context of everything else I have learned here about climate (even as that isn’t very much).
Ken
I agree with you and so the current evidence (including Francis herself). I think it is time for E. Swanson to update his files on this issue. Not an easy pitch at all!
https://www.science.org/news/2021/05/landmark-study-casts-doubt-controversial-theory-linking-melting-arctic-severe-winter
Eben says:
“classic media propaganda designed for for masses of asses”.
The irony (and morony) is that this aptly describes every video that Eben posts!
Yes , in my spare time when I take a brake from adding fluxes from cold things to warm things to create extra heat I sell, I spread propaganda on internet.
I do like to see the response of posters here when confronted by facts and careful analyses.
It always feels like I am waving a crucifix at count dracula.
The hissing, the snarling, the swearing, the scuttling away …
Delicious!
I also tried to spread climate misinformation, making false forecasts like predicting a fake La Nina, but that didn’t work out as my forecast is actually coming true
Yeah, and you are also a strawman specialist.
Flood damage is cause purely by systematic landscape and infrastructure mismanagement, nothing to do with imaginary climate change
https://youtu.be/R6R1bGlSIw8
norman…”But the current view of heat is energy in transfer, a quantity. How much energy is transferred from one object to another is generally what is called heat (though definitions of the term vary).
Energy transfers in both directions (also can be seen in collisions between a higher and lower energy objects).
Heat transfer is the NET of that energy exchange”.
***
Ask yourself Norman, in the context of the energy transfer you describe, what energy is being transferred? Consider an iron rod heated at one end by a torch. Energy is transferred from the torch and several hundred degrees C to the end of the rod, presumably at a much lower temperature to start.
What energy is transferred from the torch flame to the end of the rod? Thermal energy, right?…heat. It’s not mechanical energy, electrical energy, chemical energy, nuclear energy, etc., it has to be heat.
But you say, likely influenced by Ball4, that heat is just a measure of the energy transferred. Therefore you have a mysterious energy being transferred flame to rod and heat, to you, is simply a measure of that energy being transferred.
Actually, in real science, the energy being transferred betwen a hot flame and a cooler body is heat.
For some reason, modernists have this inane idea that internal energy is also a generic energy. It’s not, according to Clausius, who created the symbol U to represent intenral energy, that internal energy is the sum of the mechanical energy of atomic vibration and the heat that caused it.
Worse still, people presume kinetic energy is a form of energy and it’s not. KE is a generic descriptor for energy in motion and it’s counterpart, potential energy, is a descriptor for stationary/potential energy.
A battery is designed to accumulate electrons at the negative terminal as a potential energy (electromotive force). When a circuit is attached between the -ve and +ve terminals, the electrons move through the circuit as a kinetic energy (electrical current). Both forms are electrical energy.
That same KE can be applied to any form of energy.
Heat transfer is the net of a heat transfer. You cannot sum heat and electromagnetic energy.
“Actually, in real science, the energy being transferred between a hot flame and a cooler body is heat.”
That would be EMR energy transfer Gordon, you still haven’t understood EMR is not heat.
“Therefore you have a mysterious energy being transferred..”
Here Gordon pretends science doesn’t know about molecules which is dishonest and foolish.
No, it wouldn’t only be radiant energy. But, radiant energy is heat. What thermodynamics classes did you take?
That ones that correctly teach radiant energy is electromagnetic (EM) which is not heat. Also those that teach all objects at all temperatures at all times radiate (emit) EM energy and absorb EM energy from their surroundings. Even when the sun goes down!
norman…”But the current view of heat is energy in transfer, a quantity. How much energy is transferred from one object to another is generally what is called heat (though definitions of the term vary).
Energy transfers in both directions (also can be seen in collisions between a higher and lower energy objects).
Heat transfer is the NET of that energy exchange”.
***
Ask yourself Norman, in the context of the energy transfer you describe, what energy is being transferred? Consider an iron rod heated at one end by a torch. Energy is transferred from the torch and several hundred degrees C to the end of the rod, p.resumably at a much lower temperature to start.
What energy is transferred from the torch flame to the end of the rod? Thermal energy, right?…heat. It’s not mechanical energy, electrical energy, chemical energy, nuclear energy, etc., it has to be heat.
But you say, likely influenced by Ball4, that heat is just a measure of the energy transferred. Therefore you have a mysterious energy being transferred flame to rod and heat, to you, is simply a measure of that energy being transferred.
Actually, in real science, the energy being transferred between a hot flame and a cooler body is heat.
For some reason, modernists have this inane idea that internal energy is also a generic energy. It’s not, according to Clausius, who created the symbol U to rep.resent internal energy, that internal energy is the sum of the mechanical energy of atomic vibration and the heat that caused it.
Worse still, people p.resume kinetic energy is a form of energy and it’s not. KE is a generic descrip.tor for energy in motion and it’s counterpart, potential energy, is a descrip.tor for stationary/potential energy.
A battery is designed to accumulate electrons at the negative terminal as a potential energy (electromotive force). When a circuit is attached between the -ve and +ve terminals, the electrons move through the circuit as a kinetic energy (electric current). Both forms are electrical energy.
That same KE can be applied to any form of energy.
Heat transfer is the net of a heat transfer. You cannot sum heat and electromagnetic energy.
sorry for duplicate. For some reason, posts get delayed and appear after a significant time. Naturally, I think the post failed and go looking for the cause.
“Worse still, people presume kinetic energy is a form of energy and it’s not. ”
??? Well that is a new one. What then would be a legitimate ‘form of energy’ to you?
“Energy is transferred from the torch and several hundred degrees C to the end of the rod, p.resumably at a much lower temperature to start.”
Yes makes sense. That process is heat transfer.
“What energy is transferred from the torch flame to the end of the rod? Thermal energy, right?…heat. It’s not mechanical energy, electrical energy, chemical energy, nuclear energy, etc., it has to be heat.”
Well when you dive into and look at the details there are several forms of energy transformations going on.
Chemical energy is converting to kinetic and potential energy of molecules (thermal energy).
The thermal energy in the gases is transferred by convection, radiation (visible and IR), and conduction to the rod. The rod’s atoms respond by vibrating more and more (thermal energy). And transfer this energy to the rest of the rod by conduction.
The way things have been labeled (like heat) has evolved over time. Heat used to be thought of as a fluid, caloric.
That was misleading, and ignored Conservation of Energy, which we know is the basic principle at work that must be obeyed, however things are labelled.
Basically all the forms can transform into others with no loss in the total amount.
Gordon Robertson
Any form of energy can become another form. The quantity does not change and measured in the unit joules.
Mechanical energy can become electrical (generator), electric can become mechanical (motor) the amount is the same.
Chemical energy can become thermal after a reaction and can also be mechanical (moving a piston to run a motor).
Heat is now considered the energy that is transferred from a hot object to a colder one, the quantity and it can also be a flow of heat if energy is added to the system.
Yes kinetic energy is a form of energy and joule showed it can be converted to heat. One form of energy is converted to other types. The quantity is conserved, that is the First Law of Thermodynamics.
Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. If you add all the different types of energy in a system (with no external input or output) the quantity does not change. Some can be kinetic, potential, chemical, electric but the amount will remain the same (in joules) whatever form the energy is in.
You can stretch science so far but your attempt to break it will fail. Just accept some things and you will do well. Going against all science in pursuit of your contrarian agenda will fail.
“A battery is designed to accumulate electrons at the negative terminal as a potential energy (electromotive force). When a circuit is attached between the -ve and +ve terminals, the electrons move through the circuit as a kinetic energy (electric current). Both forms are electrical energy.”
The KE of the electrons is miniscule and not a significant factor. Electrons have a mass of ~ 10^-30 kg and a drift velocity of ~ 0.1 m/s in a wire. Sure, there are a lot of electrons, but the KE of all the electrons totaled is still small.
The real answer is much more subtle and fascinating. Energy does not flow out of either end of the wire, nor does it flow in one direction along the wire.
Short answer: The energy flows via the EM fields.
Long answer: Look to the Poynting Vector. Here is one explanation.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/569273/how-does-energy-flow-in-a-circuit-which-is-correct
I meant:
“Energy does not flow out of either end of the BATTERY …”
A more precise explanation uses “charge”. “Charge” moves almost instantaneously, while the electrons move much slower. “Charge” being the electromagnetic impulse.
The “electromagnetic impulse” would be the E field, not “charge”. This field propagates at basically the speed of light. Charged particles respond to this field and start to move ‘almost instantaneously’. It is much ‘more precise’ to stick with E-fields, not “charge”.
My comment is correct, as stated.
I don’t argue semantics with people bent on perverting reality.
‘I don’t argue’
Tim is correct that fields travel at speed of light, but particles which have the charge on them, travel slower.
So its,
‘I can’t argue’
A good source
https://cds.cern.ch/record/1400571/files/p15.pdf
Bindidon finds a link he can’t understand.
If he understood it, he would know that flux does not simply add.
But, the idiots can’t understand physics, and they can’t learn. They’re here to entertain us only. And they’re doing a great job!
I’m sure to understand the paper far better than you do, the very first reason being that people like you mostly aren’t able to read more of papers than their abstract.
*
Fluxes do not add
+
GHE does not exist
+
The Moon does not rotate about its polar axis
=
absolute evidence of the mental disease named flatearthism.
The cult idiots are taught to resort to “flat earth” and “Dunning-Kruger” when caught.
That’s because they have NOTHING.
Damage and deaths from severe weather events like hurricanes are entirely self inflicted by people who willingly put themself into the harms way of known and repeated storms path ways, without any or insufficient precautions, no weather hardened building standards, no weather hardened power grid, no alternative redundant power generating and power grid back ups, no heavy rain drainage, no or under-designed under-built storm surge sea walls, no evacuation plans and so on and on. But instead your government goes on to spend billions on wind mills and solar panels that have absolutely no effect on any of it and yet present it to you as a solution. You people are stupid stupid stupid.
This is why aliens never contact you , they come , see what you do – no intelligent life here – and fly right by.
Watch it as it happens over and over again and see for yourself, and better watch this video twice or trice at least.
https://youtu.be/OzWENh8W8Xc
The world wide web is really tangled up today, it placed my post into the wrong thread, I will make a stand alone post again later.
Clint R
When you say “cult idiots” you refer to yourself and some of your fellow contrarians. It is totally correct you have nothing. You just say endless amounts of very stupid things, are highly insulting. Cry like a little baby at the first time someone returns your insults and are basically too stupid to understand physics, science or evidence of any kind.
You make endless unsupported declarations and you get super repetitive just like actual cult members.
Example: “Ball on string”….ball on string…ball on string…ball on string…maybe 1000 repeats of this or more.
That is the mind of a cult indoctrinated moron.
Yes you are quite a cult idiot and you can’t understand physics.
Really a sad case of lost potential.
There never was potential for understanding relevant physics in Clint R, Norman, nothing got lost. It’s better for physical understanding to leave the thing (screenname) alone, but then it IS fun to poke it (screenname) with a sharp stick every now and then & learn some new insults.
Norman, your useless opinions and insults ain’t science.
You’ve got NOTHING.
“your useless opinions and insults aint science.”
Ironically and moronically that is a perfect description of just about every Clint post these days.
It seems he’s completely given up trying to debate anything. Sad.
Sorry Eben, you’ve posted too many propaganda videos for the gullible masses.
We’ve learned not to bother with them. Its your own fault.
Notice the Clint evolution:
Previously ‘Fluxes don’t add’
now
‘flux does not simply add.’
which of course agrees with what everyone has been saying all along!
It is not simple, geometry matters.
Fluxes from different sources hitting the same surface DO ADD.
Fluxes not hitting the same spot of course DO NOT add.
There is no geometry of ice cubes that allows flux from them to add up to more than the flux emitted at the surface of an ice cube.
Troll Nate must have had too many sugar donuts this morning with his coffee. He can’t control his rambling non-sensical comments.
Sugar, caffeine, and braindead — a great combination for entertainment.
your useless opinions and insults aint science.
completely given up trying to debate anything. Sad.
Interesting story:
https://amgreatness.com/2021/09/13/detroit-news-stations-appeal-for-stories-about-unvaccinated-loved-ones-dying-of-covid-gets-an-unexpected-response/
Yes the world is full of stupid people
“I’m one of those. I’m 44 and went into cardiac arrest and died 2 times less than 2 weeks after getting the shot….ironic???? Coincendal? Hmmmm.”
I got the shot, but only died once!
Get the shot, and don’t die so much!
” American Greatness ”
That alone tells us all we need.
Only stoopid people watch such corners.
We kicked your dumb asses… twice.
So did we.
Also of some interest is the intersection of the sets
– people against vaccines (not only COVID of course)
– far right Fascists.
Not only in Germoney of course.
You see such people on the picture
https://tinyurl.com/debf5ute
Typical far right dumbass stuff:
“Nuttenpresse hat die Fresse”
means
” Hooker press shut your damn mouth ”
Thousands of people who are against all far rightists because they absolutely dislike their political views, suddenly take to the streets with them at all demonstrations against vaccination.
Great.
Vaccine Passports will end Liberal Democracy.
ken…”Vaccine Passports will end Liberal Democracy”.
***
I’m hoping they will help end the political-correctness upon which they are based.
Bill Maher contracted covid AFTER being double-vaccinated. When the number of cases continue to rise despite vaccination, someone should eventually ask out loud, “What the heck is going on here”? Of course, governments will cover up the fraud to save face but eventually the truth should prevail.
There are currently thousands of scientists and medical personnel aware of this travesty. Hopefully, the fraudulent media, from the Josef Goebbels school of journalism, will be shamed into allowing them to be heard.
“Vaccine Passports will end Liberal Democracy. ”
You don’t have a liberal democracy.
You have an authoritarian oligarchy pretending to be a liberal democracy.
binny…”Thousands of people who are against all far rightists because they absolutely dislike their political views, suddenly take to the streets with them at all demonstrations against vaccination”.
***
I’m glad to see Germans are leading the charge against the covid fraudsters. Germans like Dr. Reiner Fuellmich has won big cases against Volkswagen and the Deutsche Bank. He calls the covid RNA-PCR test fraudulent and he is zeroing-in on Dr. Christian Drosten who produced the fraudulent test and who started the lie that people with no symptoms can infect others.
Dr. Stefan Lanka, a microbiologist who became a virologist is looking for a way to bring the scientists pushing this fraud to court. He has already won a case, convincing a German court that no scientific evidence supports the claim of a measles virus. It should be a lot easier to get convictions against the likes of Drosten since Germany views scientific fraud more seriously that does the US.
Gordon Robertson
Now you are just blatantly lying about Lanka’s case in Germany. I linked you to the correct information yet you post the distorted lies. The German Court never ruled there was “no scientific evidence to support the claim of measles virus”. The first court ordered him to pay. The higher court only ruled that since it was Lanka’s offer he could determine what was evidence. You lie about that case every time you post it. Why? Why is lying so valuable to contrarians that even when shown their error they continue to repeat it, which then becomes a lie and intent to mislead. How does that make you a good person?
Since you bring it up, I will ask again and NOT receive an answer from you. If measles virus does not exist, how did a weakened form of the virus, injected into people, all but eliminate the disease?
Why don’t you answer this question? I have asked it many times.
Robertson
1. You don’t know anything about Germany.
2. You are a ridiculous Contrarian who only publishes stuff propagated by a minuscule minority, and try to push that up as being the meaning of the majority.
3. Your lies about Drosten show how stupid you are.
norman…” The higher court only ruled that since it was Lankas offer he could determine what was evidence”.
***
You get goofier each time you post, an oddity I did not think possible.
Let’s turn to Binny, another oddity, but a German. Binny, do you think German courts are so stupid they allow a defendant to determine what the evidence should be?
Norman, you dufus, Lanka won the case by dismantling the evidence supplied by the plaintiff which the lower courts had failed to allow. The lower court simply took the word of the plaintiff without considering an examination of the content.
While Lanka was doing that, he introduced evidence, corroborated by an independent lab, that all claims of viruses by researchers, like measles, polio, etc., failed to perform a control study to determine if the healthy cells would have died anyway based on their treatment in the lab. It turned out all the healthy cells would have died.
Because the virus claimed to be the infectious agent was never physically isolated, in any case with modern viruses like measles, polio, HIV and covid, the inference was clearly wrong that a virus had caused any of the associated diseases.
Duesberg tried to tell the world that about HIV circa 1983. He was a world-renowned expert on retroviruses and the youngest member at the time inducted into the National Academy of Science. Yet he was ignored in part, by Robert Gallo, who was convicted of scientific misconduct for stealing the HIV virus from Montagnier.
Of course, to you, Duesberg is a liar as well. A pattern is emerging, anyone who represents real science is regarded as a liar by Norman. Hence Clausius is a liar for inventing the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Lanka is light years ahead of you with regard to intelligence and it is beyond me to understand why you are so bent on ad homming him. Obviously you cannot supply scientific evidence to beunk him.
binny…”Robertson…1. You dont know anything about Germany”.
***
I likely know more about Germany than you. I mean the real Germany, not the fairy world you inhabit, somewhere in Germany. You seem to speak better French than you do German.
Gordon Robertson
So you will just continue to lie and praise some truly awful humans like Lanka and Duesberg. Both low life ego con-men. They may have been scientists at one time in their life, they are not now.
You make unsupported claims to support your misinformed view.
Here is more on the Lanka case, read what the courts actually said.
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/39817/did-germanys-supreme-court-rule-that-the-measles-virus-didnt-exist/39821
Lanka is a moron. And again you fail to answer the question I asked you. Again (so you can ignore it again and praise a lowlife like Lanka that is reintroducing diseases on people that believe his lies and false science). If measles virus does not exist, then how come the researchers who isolated it to make a weakened strain used this to nearly eliminated the disease?
I am certain you will not even attempt an answer to that.
Personal Carbon Ration
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUYAoXLKIeI
Bindidon wrote –
“Fluxes do not add
+
GHE does not exist
+
The Moon does not rotate about its polar axis”
Perfectly correct.
He omitted –
“Endlessly calculating statistics of the past does not predict the statistics of the future.”
He will no doubt thank me for helping him to get his list more complete than it would be otherwise.
Mike Flynn,
You forgot “Mike Flynn.”
Most obliged,
Woeful Wee Willy,
In what strange, fantastic WeeWillyWorld would Mike Flynn forget his name? And even if he did, would that make you any less the delusional idiot that you are?
Not terribly attached to reality, are you, dummy?
About as much as the delusional Ken Rice, who seems to think that permafrost (permanently frozen ground), has magical heating properties – totally ignoring the obvious fact that permafrost was above freezing before it got cold enough to freeze!
Maybe you and Ken Rice should get closer, and stroke each other’s egos – (or something)!
You’re definitely a strange lad, Wee Willy. How are you going with your search for the GHE? Have you found out where it may be observed and measured yet?
Do let me know. I might stop chortling at your inept silliness, but I doubt it.
Mike Flynn,
Metaphysical Feuilleton,
I know you love Doritos.
That is ok Woeful Wee Willy, I know you have the weight of the world on your shoulders and you are trying to save future generations with your wildly widiculus comments. Keep whacking away.
You’re peeping again, o-bot.
barry…”“What data are you referring to that show it [COVID mortality] is simply not happening?”
Where not happening would actually equal zero percent”.
Cancer deaths in the US are 0.15% of the population per annum recently.
By your metric, death from cancer is “not happening.””
***
Where did you get your intelligence, at a garage sale? No Barry, a garage sale is not the sale of a garage. it is a sale of merchandise held in a garage.
Vernacular, Barry…vernacular….’the language or dialect spoken by the ordinary people in a particular country or region’. I presumed, giving you far too much credit for intelligence, that you’d understand that ‘not happening’ was a reference to the exaggerated claim you made that we were suffering through a re-incarnation of the bubonic plague.
There are 328 million people in the US and it is claimed there have been 670,000 deaths from covid. I think that’s a damned lie but I’ll go with it. That number of deaths is about 0.2%. Oddly enough, the UK has a similar number of deaths, and the number of deaths in Sweden per capita, without lockdown, social distancing, or masks, is lower than both.
Bill Maher has appealed to the media to stop scaring people to death. There are people afraid to go out for fear they will get infected and die. The chances of dying, according to Maher are 1% to 5% but people queried on this thought it was upward of 50%, something like 60%.
Why are governments and the media lying through their teeth about covid? If it’s worse than the common flu, it’s not by much. No one worries about dying of the flu if they contract it, and I’m sure the chances of dying from a stronger strain are about the same as covid.
Dr. Johan Giesecke, an epidemiologist and an advisor to the WHO claimed covid is no worse than a severe strain of the flu. Why should it be? It causes pneumonia in victims and that’s what they die from…pneumonia. There has to be other factors present in order to contract pneumonia. The average, healthy person does not contract pneumonia from a viral infection and the covid data proves that to be the case.
Your argument about cancer is ludicrous. Cancer has been with us forever, it seems, and we know by now what the chances are of dying from it because it is well documented. There is nothing…nada…known about covid and there is no good scientific reason why a virus should behave as covid is claimed to be behaving.
It’s idiots like you who are perpetuating the hysteria and the myth that covid is akin to recent version of the bubonic plague.
Wagons patrolling the streets…’Bring out your dead, bring out your dead’.
“If its worse than the flu its not by much”
This meme gets very tiresome.
Numbers just don’t seem to matter.
Last year the US lost 600,000 to Covid. The average Flu kills 30,000/ year.
Not close. Not remotely.
If the US govt is lying about these numbers, what about all the other countries? Are they also lying?
It does get rather ridiculous.
Nate, who is putting out those numbers that you swallow?
If someone dies in a motorcycle accident, but they test the corpse positive for Covid, did he die from Covid?
Trump said the seasonal flu mortality numbers were 30,000 to 60,000. He could have been lying, I guess.
Gordon completely missed the point. Again. His cognitive facilities are out to lunch.
Here is where I got the data for US deaths from cancer.
https://academic.oup.com/jnci/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jnci/djab131/6312532?login=true
Does Clint have source for the real numbers? No.
He is just applying his ‘numbers I dont like must be fake’ theory.
Clint and Gordon won’t put up any reliable source material because they aren’t much interested in fact-based discussion.
COVID was the 3rd biggest killer of Americans in 2020 after Heart Disease and cancer.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2778234
By Dec 31 2020 there were 345,323 deaths assigned to COVID. At the same time, there were over 500,000 more deaths in the US than the previous year. A huge jump. Annual mortality fluctuations in the US are in the 10s of thousands per year at most, not hundreds of thousands.
Also from that paper, deaths in 2020 occurred outside seasonal norms. The peaks thru 2020 for all-cause mortality are contemporaneous with the peaks in COVID mortality. IOW, COVID deaths are real and not over-counted.
But deaths from COVID began in March 2020. In the first 12 months of COVID mortality in the US (Mar 01 2020 – Feb 28 2021) 532,513 people died of COVID.
That puts it just under the number killed by cancer last year. For the latest 12-month then, a better comparison:
Heart disease – 690,882
Cancer – 598,932
COVID – 532,513
For context, the total number of Americans that died in 2019 was 2,854,838. The total for 2020 was 3,358,814.
There is a useful chart for all this in the paper.
Excess deaths exceeding the number assigned to COVID in the US is corroborated.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2778361
adding fluxes from colder objects to warmer ones – not as easy as 1+1=2
https://youtu.be/I6Hsd6oBb4U?list=TLPQMTcwOTIwMjFXwPXJM5e5mw
Eben
Your video link is of the photoelectric effect. This is the energy required to free an electron.
Not the same as molecular vibrational energy. I sent you a youtube link to view above on this, I hope you take the time to view it.
If a material surface can emit a wavelength of IR, it can absorb it.
If the Earth’s surface emits 15 micron IR it will absorb this energy when it strikes the surface.
Norman, are you still trying that same trick? Are you still trying to claim “cold” can warm “hot”?
You’re just another cult idiot that can’t learn.
If Earth’s surface receives the same photon it emitted, it will NOT warm. To raise a surface temperature, the absorbed photons must have an average energy GREATER than the average of photons being emitted. And more of the same energy does NOT increase the max temperature. More ice is NOT hotter than less ice.
I predict you STILL won’t understand.
“emitted, it will NOT warm. To raise a surface temperature, the absorbed photons must have an average energy GREATER than the average of photons being emitted”
Room temp water emits IR photons which have much higher energy than microwave photons.
And thus microwave ovens cannot heat water according to Clint’s rules..
I love it when idiots demonstrate their ignorance of science. Poor Nate has no understanding of how a microwave works. And, of course, he can’t learn.
Great entertainment, and it’s free….
And yet no science rebuttal. If you had one, surely you would give it.
Nope, just insults from a loser troll.
Clint R
No stupid one, that is not what I am claiming. You are far too ignorant of science and lack logical thinking skills to ever grasp what any are actually saying on this blog.
You are a reflection of your own stupid posts. You are exactly “Youre just another cult idiot that cant learn.”
I predict I could explain the logic to you a hundred times and you are not smart enough or thoughtful enough to understand it.
What is stated is the energy will return to the surface lowering the NET energy lost by the surface.
On average the Earth’s surface emits 390 or so W/m^2. With no GHG present it will emit this amount directly to space and lose energy at that rate. With GHG present they will emit 340 W/m^2 back to the surface. This energy does not warm the surface it is less than what is emitted. But with GHG present the NET heat loss from the surface is 50 W/m^2 rather than 390 W/m^2. The incoming solar of 163 W/m^2 is greater than the radiant NET loss so it will warm the surface above a temperature it woould achieve with no GHG in the atmosphere.
Prediction will be correct. This concept is above the intellect of stupid Clint R and he will not understand what is stated. If he chooses to respond it will be a really stupid post.
Wait and see the dummy post. Not really fun to see how stupid people have become. This one is really dumb. His post will demonstrate a very low IQ.
Sorry Norman, Norma, Lora, Loma, Lois, Luisa, Loni, Lori, Nomran, or whatever name you choose, but the sky is NOT hotter than Sun.
The ball-on-a-string is a valid model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
And, more ice can NOT warm an object more than less ice.
You have a lot to learn. But you’re quite entertaining.
Please feel free to continue.
I know, cold blankets cannot possibly keep you warm in winter, cuz, ya know, cold cannot warm hot!
Or maybe that’s just another strawman.
Now I expect some ad-hom grenades and no science.
Did you try raising the temperature of a hot rock with your cold blanket, troll Nate?
Do you think a currently cold blanket will keep a hot rock from rapidly cooling? i.e. cooling more slowly?
RLH, you don’t understand science. Like Norman, you can’t even understand the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string for “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
Let us know if anything changes.
Clint R: Let us know when you grow up and turn sensible.
“Now I expect some ad-hom grenades and no science.”
As predicted, so it has come to pass.
Clint has figured out that trolling is more fun than constantly losing debates.
So why it is that Tmean, (Tmax+Tmin)/2, is such an inaccurate a way of calculating the true Taverage during a day? USCRN data has shown this to be true. They publish this (and thus its difference) each day in their Daily figures.
I know the argument that this was the way things were done in the past (though back then no-one was trying to create a bulk atmospheric temperature and its comparative change which we all now slaver over) and thus we should keep doing it that way regardless.
In fact it looks like all ‘standard’ statistics, Mean, Median, Mode, etc. are also inaccurate. Why is that?
Well first we need to consider what we are using the statistics on. What is the distribution of temperatures during a day? We all know that the coldest point in a day is around dawn, that temperatures rise until just after noon and then fall at first rapidly and then more slowly back to dawn again the next day.
e.g.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/53154_yuma_27-ene.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/92826_everglades-city_5-ne.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/26563_kenai_29-ene.jpeg
But what does a histogram of those temperatures during the day look like?
Well let us look at one of the above and see.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/92826_everglades-city_5-ne_profile.jpg
Now it becomes apparent why Tmean is such a bad way of estimating Taverage (and why incidentally all other statistics based on the concept of ‘normal’ distributions, skewed or otherwise, likewise).
What we have is a U shaped distribution. Not a ‘normal’ one at all.
“A U-Shaped distribution is a bimodal distribution with frequencies that steadily fall and then steadily rise. There is a higher chance of a measurement being found at the extremes than in the center of the distribution. Cyclical and sinusoidal measurements are usually in distributed in U-shapes (Bucher, 2012).”
So what would be best? For analysis of both current and past temperature series.
“The U-shaped Distribution is a function that represents outcomes that are most likely to occur at the extremes of the range. The distribution forms the shape of the letter U, but does not necessarily have to be symmetrical.
The u-shaped distribution is helpful where events frequently occur at the extremes of the range. Consider the thermostat that controls the temperature of your laboratory. If you are not using a PID controller, your thermostat controller only attempts to control temperature by activating at the extremes.
For example, imagine that your laboratory thermostat is set at 20C and controls temperature to 1C. Most likely, your thermostat does not activate your HVAC system until the laboratory temperature reaches either 19C or 21C. This means that your laboratory is not normally at 20C. Instead, your laboratory temperatures are floating around the limits of the thermostats thresholds before activating or deactivating.
For this reason, it is best to characterize your laboratory temperature data using a u-shaped distribution.
To reduce your uncertainty contributors to standard deviation equivalents, you will want to divide your values by the square-root of 2.”
https://www.isobudgets.com/probability-distributions-for-measurement-uncertainty/
“Cyclical and sinusoidal measurements are usually in distributed in U-shapes”
Yes hourly T should be more like a sinusoid. No one has said it should be a Gaussian!
What should be a Gaussian is the distribution of mean over many days, and/or many locations, because of central limit thm.
” The central limit theorem (CLT) states that the distribution of sample means approximates a normal distribution as the sample size gets larger”
But the usage of Mean for temperatures is wrong than as it assumes ‘normal’ distribution which there plainly isn’t.
Adding multiple means to the answer wont make it any more accurate.
“The central limit theorem (CLT) states that the distribution of sample means approximates a normal distribution as the sample size gets larger”
If the sample is U shaped than adding millions more samples won’t make it less U shaped. Far from it.
Indeed, USCRN shows that with many, many more samples then offset is constant, not centralized to a ‘middle’ value.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uscrn-diffs-fallbrook-5-ne.jpeg
“If the sample is U shaped than adding millions more samples wont make it less U shaped. Far from it.”
EXACTLY the opposite is true.
The CLT shows that a sum of many non-Gaussians becomes Gaussian.
So how do you explain
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uscrn-diffs-fallbrook-5-ne.jpeg
then?
Many, many more samples purely confirm the offset. As expected.
> Many, many more samples purely confirm the offset.
How many out of how many?
“The CLT shows that a sum of many non-Gaussians becomes Gaussian.”
It doesn’t say that at all. Yet again shows that a little understanding of the problem and quoting CLT regardless does not make it true.
If you have a U shaped distribution, then adding a million more of them purely makes the U shaped more precise. Using an improper summary statistics in the first place does not turn it into a correct one just by using CLT.
“How many out of how many?”
Lots. Idiot.
If you want a number, 60 / 5 * 24 * 365.25 * 20(ish) * 138 = ~290,329,920 samples
So many, many more samples could purely refute the offset.
Got it.
> If you want a number
I actually want two, dummy.
Wrong as usual. Idiot.
“It doesnt say that at all. Yet again shows that a little understanding of the problem and quoting CLT regardless does not make it true.”
Yes it does say exactly that! You don’t know what you are talking about, RLH.
Look it up!
> Wrong as usual
Which part of “How many out of how many” you do not get, dummy?
Which part of “you cant change a sow’s ear into a silk purse” do you not get. Idiot.
“Look it up!”
I did and it does not.
It uses random values and normal distributions. Neither of which we have here.
A million U shaped distributions are not going to turn into a normal distribution by the use of CLT. Or 2 million or 10 million. Or however many you consider many.
An incorrect choice of summary statistic is not going to be changed into a correct one by the use of CLT either.
CLT correctly states that a million (or more) randomly skewed quasi-normal distributions will turn into a normal one. Not what we have here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem
But that’s just a description. The generalization is stronger.
The CLT statement was referring to means of data that doesnt have a Gaussian distribution. Eg monthly mean temperature in Cleveland. That new variable should have a Gaussian distribution.
If we look at montjly anomaly for various cities that should be Gaussian.
Willard: It does not state that you can turn a million U shaped distributions into a normal one with CLT. And nor should it. Statistics doesn’t work that way.
Nate: If you chose an incorrect summary statistics, nothing you do with CLT will change that initial wrong decision. Fact.
“when independent random variables are summed up”
when what we have is neither independent nor random.
You really should understand statistics before you use them.
“The CLT statement was referring to means of data that doesn’t have a Gaussian distribution.”
CLT works on skewed and un-skewed normal or semi-normal distributions. Not on U shaped ones. Especially not asymmetrical ones. Look it up if you do not believe me.
And means in most texts refers to true averages, not (min+max)/2.
“Some distributions either have more than one mode or have frequencies of occurrence of values where the histograms indicate more than one peak. Such distributions are not normal distributions, that is, distributions that likely fit a normal distribution model, and in these cases statistics based on the assumption of a normal distribution may not be valid.”
> It does not state that you can turn a million U shaped distributions into a normal one with CLT
A theorem isn’t an algorithm, dummy, and of course CLT can apply outside textbook distributions, e.g.
https://www.scielo.br/j/bjp/a/54PQ4xHnx4R3KVDRzyNn4mk
Without CLT, it’d be impossible to guess what our data is approximating most of the times.
Sooner or later you’ll have to learn how to test normality assumptions.
Willard: You do need to distinguish between Tmean, (Tmin+Tmax)/2, and sample mean. Then you might have something.
Willard: …and U shaped distributions are in class of their own. Nothing that you think you know about normal, or any other symmetrical or asymmetrical distributions, applies to them.
“CLT works on skewed and un-skewed normal or semi-normal distributions. Not on U shaped…”
Made-up BS, RLH. Just stop.
> Look it up
There you go:
https://sites.stat.washington.edu/people/fanghan/paper-Ustat.pdf
The title says it all.
“Willard: You do need to distinguish between Tmean, (Tmin+Tmax)/2, and sample mean. Then you might have something.”
This is, I suspect, all down to an incorrect naming of things.
Tmean is not the ‘sample mean’ that CLT talks about. The ‘sample mean’ that CLT talks about is Taverage’.
That is why 230 million or so samples (in the example I gave) do not make Tmean converge on the ‘sample mean’ but form a continuous offset as shown.
After all, CTL is supposed to converge after as low as 30-50 samples and it plainly does not do that.
So that just reinforces my claim that Tmean is a very, very poor way of assessing Taverage in a day (aka a ‘sample mean’).
“The title says it all.”
As does the name of things. Tmean is NOT the sample mean (aka Taverage), no matter how often you claim it is.
“Made-up BS, RLH. Just stop.”
Are you claiming that Tmean is Taverage (aka the ‘sample mean’)?
https://sites.stat.washington.edu/people/fanghan/paper-Ustat.pdf
The ‘means’ talked about in that paper are what we have been describing as Taverage. Not Tmean which is a totally different thing.
“Are you claiming that Tmean is Taverage (aka the sample mean)?”
Asking questions about a DIFFERENT issue doesnt fix your problem with CLT.
The CLT is referring to finding the mean of data that has a NG distribution. It could be a sine wave, a U wave, whatever.
The randomness appears due to daily weather variability. Find the mean of it over a period of time. A month is typical for climate change data.
That monthly mean is a new variable. It will be already quite close to Gaussian distributed.
Now average monthly mean over a large spatial region like the continental US. That new variable will be even closer to being Gaussian distributed.
It did not matter what the original shape of the distribution was.
“the mean of data”
is Taverage, not Tmean. That is the heart of the problem.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-856022
Nate says: The randomness appears due to daily weather variability. Find the mean of it over a period of time. A month is typical for climate change data.
That monthly mean is a new variable. It will be already quite close to Gaussian distributed.
In general it’s not true that the observations (T_mean or T_average) converge to a Gaussian distribution. There is, as RLH has observed, a relatively constant (on average) bias between these two metrics that varies across stations. The distribution is non-Gaussian because it is skewed by non-linear effects typical of the particular site.
The follow on question then is what this means for the science of climate change. As long as T_mean and T_average maintain a constant offset, the answer, when using anomalies, is that there is no effect. The two metrics will maintain a fixed offset if the probability distribution at the station does not change or if the only change is a shift in the mean without a change in the shape of the distribution.
If there is a change in the shape of the distribution, that represents a change in the “typical weather” which has the ironic effect of reducing the thrust of RLH’s apparent argument to “T_mean can’t be used to reliably quantify climate change because of climate change has impacted the station metrics”.
It also has the side effect that you cannot just accumulate local sites together into larger and larger areas per se. In fact attempts to remove certain sites because they do not correspond to the local ‘average’ will be counterproductive.
“The distribution is non-Gaussian because it is skewed by non-linear effects typical of the particular site.”
Can one say clouds?
Whatever it is, it is a fairly constant (though not perfect) aspect that relates to local site conditions.
Although averaging them all together can reduce the numerical differences, it is not clear that the numerical calculation is valid as such.
“T_mean cant be used to reliably quantify climate change because of climate change has impacted the station metrics”
T_mean is not T_average and thus cannot be used in any sensible measure of climate.
> Tmean is not the “sample mean” that CLT talks about.
Tmean is still a mean, dummy, and CLT only states a convergence.
CLT states a convergence of Taverage, not Tmean.
“Tmean is still a mean”
T_mean is (T_min+T_max)/2 which is not a mean except in name only.
A mean/average is (T1+T2+T3…)/n
> T_mean is (T_min+T_max)/2 which is not a mean except in name only.
The central value of two numbers is indeed a mean, dummy.
“In general its not true that the observations (T_mean or T_average) converge to a Gaussian distribution. There is, as RLH has observed, a relatively constant (on average) bias between these two metrics that varies across stations. The distribution is non-Gaussian because it is skewed by non-linear effects typical of the particular site.”
I dont see how that constant bias matters. The skewed distribution does become Gaussian when averaged over space time. That is the whole point of CLT.
I’m not talking about averaging all noons together, then all 1 pms together. I’m talking about averaging all hours over 30 days together to find a monthly mean..
“The central value of two numbers is indeed a mean”
It is called a mean but it has no relationship to a mean constructed from the average of many temperatures collected at, say, 5 minute intervals during a day.
TLDR:
(Min+max)/2 is only called a mean. It is not really one at all.
“Im talking about averaging all hours over 30 days together to find a monthly mean”
What you are describing is a true Taverage. Tmean is (Tmax+Tmin)/2, not the same thing at all.
Nate says: . . . Im not talking about averaging all noons together, then all 1 pms together. Im talking about averaging all hours over 30 days together to find a monthly mean..
Here is an all hours all days histogram of the USCRN Everglades station data for the full year and the full record 2007-present:
FL_Everglades_Histogram.png
Here is all hours all days for the month of July:FL_Everglades_July_Histogram.png
The physical dynamics govern the shape of the distributions. For this site there is an effectively unlimited supply of water (it’s literally a swamp) to be evaporated and transport heat away at the high end, tightly bounding the high temperature. The low end is less constrained and has a longer tail.
Producing all days, all hours histograms like you have just serves to hide the true meanings.
That is why I averaged all the days first to produce an average daily profile, then histogramed that to produce what I did.
What you have done is merged together the yearly profile, the weather and the daily profile to produce a mess.
“For this site there is an effectively unlimited supply of water (it’s literally a swamp) to be evaporated and transport heat away at the high end, tightly bounding the high temperature. The low end is less constrained and has a longer tail.”
What you say may well describe why the daily temperature profiles are what they are (for this station at least). And thus Tmeans difference from Taverage.
Do I see a similar description of what influences all of the Tmeans that there are throughout history so as to accurately predict what Taverage will be for any particular site?
In fact for any site there are 2 main things that govern what the average air temperature is at times during the day.
1. The inputs. The daily solar radiation and any rainfall.
2. The outputs. A combination of evaporation, rising hot air, mass transport (wind) and upwards radiation.
The solar input will be a section of the elliptical orbit that pokes above the horizon, dependent on the Latitude, local elevation and the day of the year. Small variations will occur at sunrise and sunset due to the atmosphere above receiving radiation which the ground does not.
The outgoing radiation will mostly be a downwards sloping diagonal, nearly straight, line. All 24 hours.
This can all be seen quite clearly from the average daily profiles I have created.
c.f.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/53151_fallbrook_5-ne-1.jpeg
I forgot to add the thermal inertia that the land/rock/etc. around the site gives which will produce a phase shift and delay to the right.
RLH says: Do I see a similar description of what influences all of the Tmeans that there are throughout history so as to accurately predict what Taverage will be for any particular site?
T_mean and T_average anomolies don’t seem to behave significantly different as applied to climate change metrics. As such, while such details might be interesting for one to explore, they are not necessary to broadly characterize global warming.
That, my friend, is a clear and testable statement which appears consistent with the USCRN data at least.
Yes the distribution of all hours is NG. The distribution of all days in the month of July is stretched because T trend over the month.
But what climate time series use is the Mean of all that data to produce a mean T for July in Cleveland.
That is a new variable.
Thats where the CLT applies. That new variable can be expected, if no climate change occurs, to have distribution that approaches a Gaussian.
Now find Mean July T over many cities, a large region, and that is a new variable. That new variable can be expected to have a distribution that is even more Gaussian.
“Thats where the CLT applies. That new variable can be expected, if no climate change occurs, to have distribution that approaches a Gaussian.”
CLT applies to Taverages not Tmeans, that is (Tmin+Tmax)/2.
The use of Tmeans, (Tmin+Tmax)/2, in history (and still in some stations today) means that the true Taverage of such stations cannot be accurately determined.
As each site is site specific for its deviation of Tmean from Taverage, then simply averaging them all together is suspect also. And as to removing those stations that do not conform to a local average so created then that is just making for data fit the solution.
“the Mean of all that data”
By the Mean you mean the true Taverage not the Tmean which is (Tmin+Tmax)/2.
“CLT applies to Taverages not Tmeans, that is (Tmin+Tmax)/2.
The use of Tmeans, (Tmin+Tmax)/2, in history (and still in some stations today) means that the true Taverage of such stations cannot be accurately determined.”
That HAS NOTHING TO DO with the issue of whether the CLT makes means of NG data become more Gaussian.
That is an issue of sampling fully. An entirely separate issue that has been beaten to death.
Stop mixing this all up!
> It is called a mean but
There’s no but, dummy. Tmean is a mean. It won’t stop being a mean because it’s not the mean you want.
Calling Tmean a mean does not mean that it the same as a true average mean though. Idiot.
“Stop mixing this all up!”
It is not me who persists in using Tmean to describe Taverage. It is you and others like you.
Tmean and mean are 2 separate things. Do you agree?
> Calling Tmean a mean
There is “mean” in “Tmean,” dummy. As long as you backtrack from your claim that Tmean isn’t a mean, my job here is done. Unless and until you ponder on Mark’s point:
progress won’t be made.
“A million U shaped distributions are not going to turn into a normal distribution by the use of CLT.”
This is what I was arguing with. And you are absolutely wrong about this.
Now, when cornered, you change the subject to
“It is not me who persists in using Tmean to describe Taverage. It is you and others like you.”
For the original argument, that is a red herring and a dead horse.
“There is ‘mean’ in ‘Tmean'”
There is a ‘i’ in idiot too.
Just because you can call something, something doesn’t make it something though.
(Tmin+Tmax)/2 is not the same as a true mean, Taverage, which is (t1+t2+t3…)/n unless you only have 2 values during a day (that is so statistically unlikely as to be impossible).
That the true average (often called a mean in technical papers) is used in CLT is not the same as using Tmean, (Tmin+Tmax)/2, in its place.
“is used in CLT is not the same as using Tmean, (Tmin+Tmax)/2, in its place.”
I don’t care.
That is not what the argument about CLT was all about.
You were simply wrong about how the CLT operates, and that it is applicable to climate science, and are now simply evading that fact.
We were clearly taking at cross purposes. Tmean, (Tmin+Tmax)/2, DOES NOT have any use in CLT. Taverge does.
Are you prepared to acknowledge that?
In fact one could go further. If you were to use Tmean consistently in your calculations, then regardless if you were using CLT in your work or not, you would be consistently wrong also. Either high or low depending on the characteristics of a particular site.
You can’t even be certain that a trend created from Tmean will be consistently correct either unless you know what the reasons are for Tmean being either high or low from Taverage on a given site.
Let us say that Tmean is driven by local drainage which influences local RH and evaporation. Change the drainage and change the trend.
Or Tmean is driven by the local road surfaces being white or black. All such things could change the daily temperature profile which in turn would change the histograms which in turn would change the trends.
“Are you prepared to acknowledge that?”
When have you ever acknowledged any of your errors?
It might be instructive if you were to go back a few months to when you first raised this topic and re-read some of the responses through the lens of your current level of understanding.
Show me where I was wrong then. CLT uses random values in a normal distribution for its finding. We have neither of those.
Means rely on ‘normal’ distribution. We have not normal distribution in temperatures during a day.
My initial reaction to your post was now that you’re thinking explicitly about how daily probability distributions affect statistical measures so it might be helpful to go back and re-evaluate responses using that paradigm.
You also might want to look at the highest and lowest observed temperatures and consider why they don’t appear in your distribution graphic.
I think that this may clear up a lot of yours and other comments
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-856022
Min and max temperatures are reflected in the distribution histograms
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/92826_everglades-city_5-ne_profile.jpg
https://climatedatablog.wordpress.com/2021/09/17/uscrn-stillwater-histogram/
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/53151_fallbrook_5-ne_profile.jpg
The lowest temperature ever recorded at the Everglades City USCRN site is not 19.5C. Ergo your graphic doesn’t represent the distribution of temperature observations at that site.
So what does it represent and what is the significance of what it represents?
To be clear I’m not even debating the validity of your conclusion, such as it is, I’m pointing out an obvious flaw in your methodology.
It’s an average calculation, not a min/max as such. So it’s the min/max of the averages you see in the histograms.
I just rely on SQL to do the averaging of the sub-hourly figures as such.
Most of my graphs are daily averages from all of the sub-hourly records at any given site over the time it has been open.
The clue was in the heading of
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/53154_yuma_27-ene.jpeg etc.
where it says ‘Average daily profile’.
The histograms come from those.
The mathemagicians who think you can add flux from colder object to a warmer one by using a blanket analogy are scientifically retarded.
No blanket works by adding up radiation from “it” back to the object it covers. If it did then when you cover a warmer object by a colder or even the same temperature blanket the temperature of the object covered would have to momentarily increase higher than it was before covering it, then they would both start cooling again.
it would have to result in in same effect as adding temperatures together, It is Bizarro Planet fizzix.
Misunderstanding still, Eben.
A blanket works when an object has a heat source, like a human body, or Earth’s surface heated by the sun.
Cover a human in a 60 degree room with a 60 degree blanket. What happens?
The human’s skin T rises from initially 70 degrees to 80 degrees and the blanket from 60 to 70 degrees.
The cold blanket has made the human warmer with the assistance of the human’s heat source.
Troll Nate admits, “…or Earths surface heated by the sun.”
Yes Nate, “It’s the Sun, stupid!”
Its the sun, but why do you guys keep posting strawmen without the sun, without space, ignoring the real geometry?
???
When troll Nate spews such nonsense he knows he’s lost in his cult beliefs. All he can do is babble.
That’s why this is so much fun.
It is clearly more fun for you to troll than to rebut the science..
I just checked my skin temperature on my legs (96 degrees), my arms (97 degrees) and my forehead (98.2 degrees). It is currently 65 degrees in the room I am in so was anticipating something warmer than the 70 degrees in your comment. I cant find anything close to it. Curious, where did this 70 degree skin temperature figure come from? I believe the hypothalamus regulates body temperature to remain between mid to upper 90 degree range. Yes?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_temperature
From wikipedia
Skin temperature is the temperature of the outermost surface of the body. Normal human skin temperature on the trunk of the body varies between 33.5 and 36.9 C (92.3 and 98.4 F), though the skin’s temperature is lower over protruding parts, like the nose, and higher over muscles and active organs.
Ok. The numbers are qualitative, just illustrative of the point that blankets make us warmer. And make us feel warmer. Feeling cold is related to skin temperature, which is a signal of too much heat loss. A blanket lowers our heat loss, and we sense that on our skin. Yes?
For someone in the sun, a blanket would keep you cooler.
https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2015/10/23/14/39/egypt-1003078_960_720.jpg
However, if you are trying to create a blanket/human skin temperature analogy to cloud/earth temperature. I think you would need to add ocean and food. Thus
Food/Hypothalamus/Blanket/Skin temperature
Sun/Oceans/Clouds/Earth temperature
That would result in energy source, regulator, insulator, resulting temperature. Your thoughts?
The blanket/human is an example of the insulation and heat transfer physics at work here.
A better one, perhaps, is a heated house in winter and attic insulation.
These are not meant to be true models of the atmosphere folks!
The real atmosphere is largely transparent to visible and near-IR sunlight, which heats the surface. The surface cools by LWIR and convection to the atmosphere, which in turn radiates LWIR to space. GHG impede the LWIR radiation to space.
That is an insulation effect. Sorry it just is.
Nate says, That is an insulation effect. Sorry it just is.
My point is that insulation goes both ways. GHG’s, reduce daytime maximum temperature and reduce the cooling rate at night. Sorry it just is.
You think there is no difference in transmission of visible and LWIR through the atmosphere?
When we add CO2 to the atmosphere, it does little to impede visible and near IR from the sun from reaching Earth’s surface, but does impede the output of LWIR to space.
Nate says, You think there is no difference in transmission of visible and LWIR through the atmosphere?
Which comment did I make that makes you ask that questions? Visible light has much more energy than LWIR, of course there is a difference in the transmission through the atmosphere. However, the sun is not just visible light. The sun is full spectrum.
When you add CO2 to the atmosphere you reduce daytime temperature all else being equal. Thus the daytime moon is hotter than daytime desert on Earth, and places like Dallas and Los Angeles that are non-attainment and have higher concentrations of CO2 are have cooler daytime temperatures than deserts with lower CO2 at similar latitudes/elevations.
Just like the desert Bedouins uses blankets to keep themselves cooler during the day, CO2 helps reduce total (full spectrum not just visible) solar energy reaching the earth surface.
“When you add CO2 to the atmosphere you reduce daytime temperature all else being equal.”
“of course there is a difference in the transmission through the atmosphere. However, the sun is not just visible light. The sun is full spectrum.”
Billy Bob.
You are ignoring the fact that sunlight PEAKS in the visible range.
Emissions peak in LWIR.
CO2 has its main abs*option at the emissions peak, none at the solar peak.
Nate says sunlight PEAKS in the visible range
Irrelevant. Still does not alter the fact that 0.75 – 8 μm (155 – 1,653 meV photon energy) infrared is impacted by CO2.
CO2 helps reduce daytime temperature, sorry it just does.
that should be 0.75 8 um and only certain portions of that.
Some additional info below. Not sure of the accuracy, let me know if you have better information. As you can see, visible may be more intense but the heat is in the infrared.
The near infrared portion of the solar spectrum runs from approximately 780 nm to 2,500 nm and carries about 49% of the solar energy just under half of the total solar energy. Although it accounts for 53% of the heat from the sun!
Billy Bob,
Unless you are going to show that the reduction of solar input is comparable in magnitude to the reduction in IR output, this is going nowhere.
“As you can see, visible may be more intense but the heat is in the infrared.”
Both visible and IR deliver heat.
Here is quantification.
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/03/28/co2-in-the-solar-spectrum/
Nate says Unless you are going to show that the reduction of solar input is comparable in magnitude to the reduction in IR output, this is going nowhere.
We will just have to leave it at that then, unless someone on this blog wants to do that calculation, I don’t have the time. The process would be to show each co2 band impacting IR on solar input adjusting for water vapor to determine the reduction during the day by co2. You will need to account for the photo energy and intensity. Then compare to the outgoing IR for the same time period which has 4 times less photon energy.
Intuitively though, if co2 was raising daytime temperature, it would be logical to assume places with higher co2 concentrations would be hotter. The fact is deserts at similar latitude/elevation are hotter than urbanized areas with high co2 concentration during peak day. It is also a fact that the highest recorded temperatures come pre 1950’s, how can that be if we have added over 100 ppm of co2?
1 56.7 Furnace Creek Ranch, Death Valley, California, US 1913-07-10
2 55.0 Kebili, Tunisia 1931-07-07
3 54.0 Tirat Zvi, Israel 1942-06-21
So we can leave this as is, I will be just happy if you recognize that blankets can also cool you. It would be a tragedy if you still thought they only warm.
Nate keeps reposting his endless drivel about the blankets keeping people warm as if that was his key scientific proof.
Nobody ever argued a blanket doesn’t keep you warmer, a caveman 40000 years ago knew that the blanket keeps him warmer, the subject is the mechanism how the blanket actually does it,
in that regard Nate doesn’t know any more than the caveman did.
The mechanism of how blankets work? This is not a major mystery, Eben. Insulation is well understood. Maybe read about it.
Troll Nate, your problem is trying to link blankets to the atmosphere. The closest thing to a “blanket” is a low cloud. A low cloud at night can effectively hold surface temperature, somewhat. But in sunlight, the low cloud is reflecting sunlight.
But clouds aren’t composed of CO2.
You just can’t win, huh?
The way GHG act as insulation has been explained to you countless times. And the best you can say is that the standard radiative heat transfer physics is invalid?
This is ‘declared’ truth. Where is a source to back it up? I asked you above what valid eqn replaces the invalid one?
Wrong troll Nate. You haven’t explained anything. You just attempt to confuse and pervert.
Their invalid equation was discussed and debunked upthread. You can’t understand it, because you’re a braindead idiot.
Clint R
Wrong! The equation was NEVER debunked. You proposed a stupid point which the intelligent Tim Folkerts dismantled and proved you too stupid to grasp his intelligent points (in reality he is quite the intelligent poster, you are too ignorant of science to understand anything he posts).
So continue on with your deluded cult thinking.
We all know you will. Oh yes and while you are at it post another stupid and pointless comment with a few idiot insults added in for fun.
Norma, you might have a point if you could determine the temperature of the outer sphere from that invalid equation. But you can’t….
Clint R
So stupid! Amazing you are so incredibly stupid, how do you maintain that state? Is it blissful?
I rationally explained the equations function to you. It is NOT difficult to understand for most, for you maybe impossible.
The equation is used to determine the amount of heat that will transfer from a hot object. It is based upon the area of the object, its emissivity, and its temperature. All these values determine how much energy is leaving the surface. The minus sign (temperature of the other object) determines how much energy it gains. The sum of emission minus gain determines the NET loss.
As Tim Folkerts explained, the temperture of the sphere depends upon other factors.
The equation is not for determining the temperature of a receiving object since it is about the emitting object and how much energy it transfers.
Your points are really stupid and when intelligent posters try to explain it to you, you just can’t seem to understand what they are telling you.
Continue on posting your stupid cult messages.
Yes, the invalid equation is useless.
The inner sphere always emits the same. The outer sphere emits based on its temperature, with is a function of its size, which is NOT included in the invalid equation.
The flux from the outer sphere is DIFFERENT than the flux from the inner sphere. You believe you can subtract different things if you get the arithmetic correct. That’s like believing you can subtract 20 fighter jets from 40 mushrooms and get 20 mushrooms!
You can do arithmetic, but you can’t do physics.
Cliint R
It is really incredible how stupid you can be.
Your inability to understand the equations function and use is one thing but then you come up with such ridiculous and stupid points in how fluxes are somehow to be determined by the equation then you to to fighter jets and mushrooms? What the!??
The equation is used to determine how much heat a hot object is losing via radiation. That is its function, that is it use. It is used all over the world in engineering applications for just that reason. Your over-the-top stupidity or request the equation can do more than it is designed to do is really NOT working well for you.
Well Clint was asked what is the valid equation to replace the one he claims invalid, but naturally he has no answer, because its all about trolling and fake physics.
Poor Norma says: “The equation is used to determine how much heat a hot object is losing via radiation.”
Norma, “heat” is NOT lost. “Heat” is a transfer of energy from a hot system to a cold system.
You can’t learn.
Troll Nate, the valid equation you’re looking for is the equation from the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, S = εσT^4
That equation provides the flux emitted by a surface. You won’t be able to understand it.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint: ” ‘Heat’ is a transfer of energy from a hot system to a cold system.”
Exactly. Energy is transferred from / being lost by / removed out of / deducted from the hot systems and simultaneously transferred to / being added to / put into the cold system.
Which is exactly what Norman said. Energy is indeed being lost by the hot system and simultaneously an equal amount of energy is being added to the cold system.
TF, thanks for quoting me correctly. But, you don’t understand the issue.
Norma, Loni, Lori, Nomran, did not say use “energy”. Here’s what he/she stated: “The equation is used to determine how much heat a hot object is losing via radiation.”
You cult idiots continue to confuse “energy” with “heat”.
A surface radiates energy, but that does not imply any “heat” is occurring. Ice cubes radiate energy, but they can’t raise the temperature of something at a higher temperature.
Study physics, or continure to pervert reality. Your choice.
And, I since I no longer argue semantics with idiots, continue perverting reality as you choose.
Clint R
Again I really do not know what type of point you are trying to make.
You are wrong and ignorant but that will not change.
Since you do understand what I state (which is correct in the real science world) I will link you to a science source that says the same thing. I do not think this will elevate your thought process but we can see.
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/thermalP/u18l1d.cfm
Read through the material:
“On the macroscopic level, we would say that the coffee and the mug are transferring heat to the surroundings. This transfer of heat occurs from the hot coffee and hot mug to the surrounding air. The fact that the coffee lowers its temperature is a sign that the average kinetic energy of its particles is decreasing. The coffee is losing energy. The mug is also lowering its temperature; the average kinetic energy of its particles is also decreasing. The mug is also losing energy. The energy that is lost by the coffee and the mug is being transferred to the colder surroundings. We refer to this transfer of energy from the coffee and the mug to the surrounding air and countertop as heat. In this sense, heat is simply the transfer of energy from a hot object to a colder object.”
That is what the equation deals with. How much energy is the hot mug of coffee losing to the surroundings? The equation will give you a precise answer. The equation is good and you are stupid. What else is new?
“Troll Nate, the valid equation youre looking for is the equation from the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, S = εσT^4”
So you think the heat transfer from shell at T1 to the shell at T2 would be εσT1^4?
So the temperature of shell 2 doesnt matter?
Please do show us a source that agrees with this.
Lori, you should have stopped with “Again I really do not know…”
Because that is true. You really don’t know.
The last line of your quote is correct. But you can’t understand it.
<i."In this sense, heat is simply the transfer of energy from a hot object to a colder object."
You can’t deal with reality.
Sorry Nate if I avoid responding to your nonsense sometimes.
I prefer good comedy, like Lori and Folkerts provide. You’re just boring.
Clint R
Most stupid and ignorant one. You are not able to follow posts at all.
First I have stated heat is the transfer of energy from hot to cold and I understand it quite well. Where that tangent of a point came from only your twisted mind knows.
Again none of your post supports any of your really stupid comments that the established and used radiant heat transfer equation is not valid.
You come up with the really stupid point that the equation can’t determine the temperature of a sphere (that can have many different potential temperatures based upon its size, which Tim Folkerts tried to explain to you) even though the equation is not designed to to so.
Your last post has no purpose except to show how stupid you are. You can’t even make good points.
So Clint, maybe you could impress us with your knowledge of physics. Rather that declaring equations ‘invalid’ for no particular reason, provide a ‘correct’ calculation.
A sphere with surface area 1 m^2 and emissivity of 0.9 is held at 300 K. This sphere is at the center of a large, evacuated container (lets say 100 m in radius), walls @ 200 K & emissivity = 0.9.
How much power (say from an electrical heater) is required to keep the small sphere @ 300 K?
“Sorry Nate if I avoid responding to your nonsense sometimes.
I prefer good comedy”
That makes perfect sense, if your goal is to troll.
And it is.
” the subject is the mechanism how the blanket actually does it,”
Well if you had a warmer room temperature, you don’t need a blanket.
The question is why is our global air temperature a cold 15 C.
Or why aren’t living in time where in past interglacial periods, it was much warmer.
A blanket is an analogy in which air – is a blanket.
It’s quite a stupid analogy.
What causes our surface air to be warm when it’s daytime, is the sun.
Average surface air temperature is daytime highest air temperature and lowest air temperature at night.
As rough rule, if night time air temperature is colder, the daytime high air temperature will be less warm.
If you were use the analogy of blanket, a warmer night time air temperature is like have more blankets during the day- but that is dumb. It just if have colder night, it limits amount the energy from sun warm the colder atmospheric mass.
But you have weather, and various weather, can warm day turn into cooler day, and if start colder night, weather you cause a warmer day then the rough rule would predict.
The global average surface air temperature is about 15 C, and climate scientists have been saying the global has been about 15 C for over a century.
The reason for this apparent sameness over 100 years, is the climate scientist have not measured the global temperature precisely over 100 years ago, nor are measuring it precisely today. We are left saying it’s about 15 C. But it seems it’s measure well enough, to say that over 100 years, global average surface air temperature has increase by about 1 C.
Or we could say now, it appears that about 100 years ago the average global air was about 14 C, and earlier during Little Ice age it might have been about 13 C.
15 C is cold and 13 C is colder.
But when global air was about 13 C, for some reason glacier were increasing and starting around 1850 AD, the glaciers began retreating {or shrinking].
A global average temperature of 15 C doesn’t tell you much other than is a cold temperature.
What tells you more, is that US average surface air temperature is about 12 C. China is about 8 C, and Europe is about 9 C.
But what tell more is northern hemisphere average land surface air temperature is about 12 C, and southern hemisphere land temperature is about 8 C {because of large cold and Antarctic continent]
And northern and southern hemisphere ocean surface temperature are about 17 C, but southern ocean is a bit colder than northern hemisphere, again due to the cold Antarctic continent.
The location of Antarctic continent at the south pole is considered factor in why we are in an icehouse climate.
Or why we in a 34 million year Ice Age.
Which is called, Late Cenozoic Ice Age. Wiki:
“The Late Cenozoic Ice Age, or Antarctic Glaciation began 33.9 million years ago at the Eocene-Oligocene Boundary and is ongoing.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Cenozoic_Ice_Age
Or Antarctica had tropical conditions, before it moved to the south pole. The Glaciation of the Antarctica was key factor in our global climate.
So, you say we in the Late Cenozoic Ice Age or in period time of Antarctic Glaciation {nobody cares much about Island of Greenland, our biggest island which also has a lot of Ice.
It’s important, but maybe not as globally important.
Anyhow what we certainly not in, is Greenhouse global climate which is a warm global climate. Because our ocean has average temperature of about 3.5 C
What find interesting is the denial that cold ocean does not matter.
Willis Eschenbach
“The average temperature of the earth is hot enough to melt solid rock and yet despite that, very little of that heat makes it to the surface to affect us.
The same is true of the ocean being cold. Since the ocean surface isnt cold, it makes little difference.”‘
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/09/12/surface-radiation-balance/
That geothermal heat doesn’t warm ocean much- is somewhat understandable misconception, mainly due to our lack of exploration of the ocean.
But the climate science is pretty clear, that the reason we in an Ice Age, is because we have a cold ocean.
But imagine others agree with Willis.
Who thinks having an ocean with average temperature of 3.5 C, makes little difference?
So many things to say. For those who imagine CO2 levels are important, do they know the reason we have low CO2 levels is because our ocean is cold?
Or if ocean warmed, CO2 gas would released? Don’t read what any these crazy CAGW guy say?
They are terrified by the idea the ocean will get warmer- but they clueless how cold it is. Or how long it would take warm it by .5 C.
And I often quote:
“More than 90 percent of the warming that has happened on Earth over the past 50 years has occurred in the ocean. ”
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content
Does it not matter if ocean warms?
Do think it’s wrong. Is it a “wrong opinion”?
Is it less the 90%. Do have any number which would a more
correct opinion. Or are refusing to think about it?
Water vapor and CO2 in the atmosphere are not like a blanket. They are like single-ply tissue paper. Thank God they are not responsible for warming.
Stephen P. Anderson
I always wonder what is the source of your declarations. You make lots of claims but so far seem to support none of them. Science is not a system of making claims without evidence (that is reserved for Right-Wing media and Facebook). One needs to support the claims with some valid evidence.
The science says you are quite wrong.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_6145ea2d4930f.png
Values from a sensor pointing up to the sky.
You can choose to disbelieve this evidence as some do but then you will be required to provide your own data that proves this data is wrong.
Norma, you found another link you don’t understand!
Notice when the sun goes down, the infrared goes down.
When the sun comes up, the infrared goes up.
It’s the Sun, stupid!
Clint R
Displays more stupidity. He can’t even understand the point of the graph and makes some tangent point unrelated to the actual topic.
The Downwelling IR is a function of atmospheric temperature so of course it goes down at night and rises during the day. That has nothing to do with the amount of energy the warm atmosphere is sending to the surface.
Yes. It’s easy to understand and remember.
“It’s the Sun, stupid!”
As easy as ABC, Pup:
https://climateball.net/but-abc/
–You can choose to disbelieve this evidence as some do but then you will be required to provide your own data that proves this data is wrong.–
Science is not about proving data is wrong.
Anyone providing wrong data, is simply a fraud- it’s criminal.
Getting data precise, is obviously an important factor related science.
as example, polling opinion, is not meant to very precise, but good enough to be useful. If data of polling is wrong, it’s fraud.
But there is all kind issues related to polling.
With polling as with climate climate, if anyone providing false data- are not worth talking to. You don’t waste any of your time talking to them.
Norman wrote:
But your graph displays the IR radiation at the surface in watts/m^2. The source of that energy flow is the atmosphere, as the IR from above TOA is effectively zero. What’s measured is the net column emissions thru the entire atmosphere above and includes emissions from all the greenhouse gases as a function of the temperature profile from the surface to TOA. Those measurements ARE IN FACT capturing the rate at which energy from the warm atmosphere arrives at the surface.
E. Swanson
I was informing Stephen P. Anderson that GHE was actually quite large. The atmosphere is sending a considerable amount of energy down to the surface. He was claiming it was very small and I gave evidence it was not.
Then Clint R brings up the solar cycle. My point to Clint R was the solar cycle had nothing to do with the magnitude of energy the atmosphere is returning to the surface. It does fluctuate but the magnitude is still quite large.
–E. Swanson
I was informing Stephen P. Anderson that GHE was actually quite large. The atmosphere is sending a considerable amount of energy down to the surface.–
In last 8000 years greenhouses gases have increased and CO2 has increased by 150 ppm.
And in terms of doubling CO2 a 150 ppm increase from 260 ppm is fairly close a 250 ppm of having 520 ppm.
But increase in temperature from this 150 ppm increase over this 8000 years has not been measurable. And in 8000 years, Earth has cooled. The Sahara desert has turned into sand and forests frozen stumps are still no where near current living trees.
And glaciers which formed during the Little Ice Age and other cooler periods within this 8000 years, are still glaciers.
It doesn’t appear increasing global CO2 has much effect.
I would say when can measuring global warming better, I think the warming effect of doubling of C02 will be about 0 to .5 C added to global average surface air temperature within time period of 100 years. And would call that a small effect.
And it’s clear to me the CO2 levels will reach 520 ppm within 50 years. And if we reach 520 ppm, it will probably related to China finding more Coal to burn. But it seems China is trying to make more nuclear powerplants, but quite possible they will fail to make as much nuclear powerplants as they desire to make in the next 50 years.
It seems the only thing that could save China, is if US finds mineable water on the Moon.
Norman,
Natural temperature variation causes a rise and fall of CO2 in the atmosphere. If CO2 caused temperature increase which would then cause more CO2 and temperature increase we wouldn’t be here now. CO2 is only 0.04% of the atmosphere. The only evidence for 33K GHE is a false black body model. Vournas for one has falsified the model. Berry has falsified the IPCC carbon cycle model.
I just thought of different way of saying something about our cold ocean. I haven’t given it much thought, but whatever.
Now the cargo cult says CO2 doesn’t do much warming, but it causes increase in global water vapor.
Of course I should note humans could be increase global water vapor, some think with all this fancy modern irrigation- which is increasingly more popular- it could have increased global water vapor. Now if we wanted to, we could wantonly spray water in the vast hot Sahara desert.
Not to grow anything, but just for fun.
And since world is cold, this could be practical thing to do, and don’t have to use the ineffective CO2 to do it.
But one could also say, increasing CO2 levels and all this irrigation is not having much effect upon global water vapor.
But if we spent say 1 trillion dollars just spraying water in the Sahara {and not all the work of growing things] it could have a bigger effect upon global water vapor, than all the irrigation {which miserly tries to conserve water] and raising of CO2 levels.
But my new thing is, maybe our cold ocean is reducing the effect of higher CO2 levels and all this irrigation, we doing for hundreds of years, in increasing global water vapor.
What do you think, could a cold ocean cause less global water vapor?
{I used to think it was the clouds- the icy clouds- btw I have not given up on that. But maybe a cold ocean also involved or even a bigger effect}
I don’t know but I do know we wouldn’t be here if the planet had all these booby traps like positive feedback, CO2 ticking time bombs.
“The only evidence for 33K GHE is a false black body model.”
Stephen, there is no blackbody model in the instrumentally measured 33K because blackbodies do not even exist.
“Vournas for one has falsified the model.”
Vournas ignores the opacity of an atm., so Vournas simply ignores the earthen GHE instrumentally measured at 33K.
“Its the Sun, stupid!”
So if I add insulation to my attic, Clint will think that’s pointless for keeping my house warm, because
“Its the Furnace, stupid!”
Nate says:
September 17, 2021 at 10:42 AM
“emitted, it will NOT warm. To raise a surface temperature, the absorbed photons must have an average energy GREATER than the average of photons being emitted”
Room temp water emits IR photons which have much higher energy than microwave photons.
And thus microwave ovens cannot heat water according to Clint’s rules..
——————————————————–
Predictably Nate doesn’t even know how microwave oven works
there are children videos that explain it, the least you could do is look it up.
https://youtu.be/kp33ZprO0Ck?t=8
Dude stop embarrassing yourself with your posting in here, find some other hobby, something easy like bottle caps collecting
Ahh, the ol photon border control argument. The one where only the “warm” photons are permitted entry and the “cold” photons mysteriously disappear.
You gonna need a bigger straw-man to save your buddy Nate from this one
My post has nothing to do with how microwave ovens work. It has to do with how photons work. The point is they don’t work like Clint claims.
They do not need to be higher energy photons than those emitted by the surface in order to deliver energy and heat to that surface.
And I notice neither of you can sensibly explain your confusion about this.
Nate, you do not understand the physics. And, you can’t learn.
Try cooking something in a microwave without the magnetron.
That should be your first clue. If you could think for yourself….
Tell us again how border control identifies “warm” photons from “cold” photons.
We are all ears waiting for a sensible answer.
Let me remind you of your problem:
A photon has frequency and speed. That is all. It does not have a sign on its back saying “I was emitted by an object at temperature T”
Border control may discriminate based on frequency, but it cannot discriminate on temperature.
Got it?
studentb,
Border control? Stupid climate crackpots just can’t accept physical reality, can they?
You may be all ears, but maybe you would be better served by having less ears and more brains.
Photons interact with electrons following physical laws which are obviously unknown to climate crackpots.
Where may the GHE which you so assiduously worship be observed? Or, like other supernatural entities, does it only become visible to climate cult members of the highest ranks?
You really are gullible as well as delusional, aren’t you?
Dodging and weaving wont save you.
Answer the question.
studentb,
Your question was –
“Got it?”
Admirably succinct, if totally incomprehensible.
Care to try harder?
I suggest you might stop uttering inanities such as “border control” if you want to be taken seriously.
Stop dodging and weaving and pretending not to understand the question.
You must have been a very difficult student in class.
studentb, you are confusing politics with science. That’s always a bad thing to do.
IR photons are absorbed if the wavelengths are accepted. Otherwise, the photons are reflected. Even if absorbed, if their frequency does not increase the average frequency, the temperature does not go up. That’s why you can’t make an object hotter by adding more ice.
It’s also why an atmosphere layer at 264K can NOT warm the surface at 288K.
Clint,
“IR photons are absorbed if the wavelengths are accepted. Otherwise, the photons are reflected.”
Kinda looks like your six-pack is finished if you have a beer and I have a beer.
I would list them for you, but I don’t give a shit.
But there are 6 ways photons interact with matter, you only listed two of them.
Maybe crack that Quantum Physics textbook, my advice is to take the wrapper off first.
Nate,
Are an idiot attempting to pretend you are not?
You are extremely confused. Ice can emit 300 W/m2, and this wavelength of light obeys the laws of optics, like all the rest.
Now, you can concentrate this light, by means of lenses, mirrors etc., and increase the “flux density” to say, 3,000,000 W/m2. Don’t believe me? Concentrating the light from one square meter of the aforementioned ice onto one square centimetre will produce this.
Try heating an infinitesimal amount of water with this prodigious amount of energy! Can’t do it, can you?
Maybe you are not an idiot – just a very gullible climate crank!
Learn some physics. Or remain an ignorant fool, if you like.
Tell us again where that “3,000,000 W/m2” goes?
Is it reflected off the water?
Does it pass right through as if the water was invisible?
Does it just disappear ? Like magic?
studentb,
You are obviously as ignorant as Nate. Why do you bother asking such stupid questions?
Do you really not understand how light interacts with matter?
Compose another gotcha from the abysmal depths of your ignorance – ask why glass is transparent to some wavelengths of light. I suppose you think that the photons which pass through the glass without interaction have magical properties!
You are really ignorant, aren’t you? Try and figure it out for yourself. The conservation laws tell you that the photons emitted by ice don’t just disappear. Do a bit of research yourself. Why bother asking me, when your attitude indicates you are going to refuse to accept what I say?
If you really do not know, and you have made a reasonable effort to find out for yourself without gaining knowledge, then the comprehension of the physical mechanism if obviously beyond you. Carry on rejecting reality, and substituting delusional ignorance in its place. Become a devout climate crackpot if you wish.
Hit a nerve there did I?
What if the water was black ink?
It goes straight through you say?
Admit it – you are cooked!
“blank ink”?
studentb, visible light has different wavelengths than IR. That’s why differing fluxes don’t add.
Nice try at distraction (magnetron). But still no science, and your completely mad up rule about how photons work is still disproved!
And Flynnson is just trolling. No science.
Poor Nate believes a microwave oven’s magnetron is a “distraction”.
He believes photons don’t obey the laws of physics.
He has strange beliefs. Maybe that’s because he’s a braindead idiot.
“He believes photons dont obey the laws of physics.”
As usual the troll just hurls insults and states no laws of physics that have been violated.
“IR photons are absorbed if the wavelengths are accepted. Otherwise, the photons are reflected.”
OK sure, material absorb better or worse at various wavelengths. They could also be transmitted.
“Even if absorbed, if their frequency does not increase the average frequency, the temperature does not go up.”
The frequency of microwaves are certainly much less than the frequencies of IR emitted by room temperature water. So they will not be ‘increasing the average frequency’ when abs*orbed by water.
So by your ‘law of physics’ microwaves CANNOT HEAT WATER!
Of course in the real world, they can.
So apparently your new ‘law of physics’ is rather easily falsified, and is not at all a real law of physics.
Try again.
Troll Nate, unplug your microwave and see what happens.
Someday you may actually learn about the 2nd Law of Thermo. If that ever happens, you will recognize the magnetron, energy input, waveguides, and reflecting walls of a microwave oven mean something.
Of course, that will never happen because you’re braindead.
The loser troll predictably hurls more insults lacking any science.
Why are you here?
Troll Nate, you and your fellow cult idiots are here to pervert science and reality. A number of us stand contrary to your perversion and corruption.
And then there is the humor in watching you get tangled in your own webs….
“A number of us stand contrary”
With no science, no evidence, no rebuttal, just insults?
Literally everyone can see that you have no answers, that you are just faking it and losing.
Look at the bright side, Nate and studentb are perfect demonstrators of the Dunning-Kruger effect, I just didn’t know they come a pairs
No science.
No answers.
As dumb as XX (as in Washington XX -I cannot mention the initials). Remember him?
I don’t pay much attention to all these alarmist cranks except when they currently bite on my ankles.
Yet you replied.
Thank you.
This is my thread I started , you are the ankle biter butting in
ANd yet Eben has been unable or unwilling to explain what it is he thinks I don’t understand about microwaves.
“Nate doesnt even know how microwave oven works”
Of course my point was about photon energy and heating, not about microwave ovens work
This is what trolls do. They just tell you don’t understand science, but never explain WTF they are talking about.
Troll Nate, you are trying to use the fact that a microwave oven can boil water to believe that all microwave photons can boil water. You don’t understand the science, and when someone tries to help you, you reject the help.
That makes you just another braindead cult idiot.
“boil water to believe that all microwave photons can boil water”
Huh?
Microwave photons can be abs*orbed by water and deliver energy and heat to water.
That is all I said.
And where do you refute that? I don’t see it anywhere.
Thus, your completely made up rules about photon energy are falsified.
Oh well, trolls don’t need to be correct or make sense. So your job is secure.
Nate, your desperate need to pervert reality just adds to the humor.
And where is your science?
Just ad-homs. Loser.
nate…”Tim is correct that fields travel at speed of light, but particles which have the charge on them, travel slower”.
***
Fields don’t power an electrical or electronic device, the current does, and that current is measured in electron/charge flow.
If you have a conductor carrying a current, there is an electrical field and a magnetic field around the conductor, but neither can drive a load.
Tim’s reference to an electromagnetic pulse was a reference to electromagnetic energy delivered over a short time frame, but that has nothing to do with the current referred to by Clint in his claim. So, Tim was wrong.
It’s not too clear, the difference between an electron and a charge. An electron is definitely a particle with mass but it also has an associated negative charge. I don’t think anyone knows why, but charges are a very basic unit in physics, extending down into sub-atomic particles like quarks.
In basic electronics theory, the student is introduced to the notion that charges can move independently of the electrons. The student is presented with a mechanical analog that demonstrates the reasoning. That theory, related to electrostatics, is introduced in a separate physics course in 1st year engineering and the electrical theory is introduced mathematically without explaining charges and electrons.
We were taught that the flow of charges independent of the physical electron is akin to marbles or ball-bearings lined up in a V-groove. If you have bearings lined up in a V-groove, all of them touching each other, and you press down on the first ball while tapping it with a small hammer, the energy imparted by the hammer will move ball to ball down the line and only the last ball will move.
It’s not clear how this works with charges in a conductor but it does.
You’ll see confused theories about atomic structure trying to explain the movement of electrons through a lattice of copper atoms. Ideally, and theoretically, copper atoms are bonded to each other by valence electrons and those valence electrons are the only ones free to engage in current flow.
The bond used to be called a covalent bond, meaning the atoms shared valence electrons, but modernists have introduced the notion of a cloud of free electrons in metals able to move freely. I think the new theory is nonsense. In which space do these free electrons live and when moving, where do they move? The idea of free electrons inhabiting intra-atomic spaces is sheer speculation/nonsense.
A battery is basically an electro-chemical device that produces an excess of electrons at the negative terminal. That represents a build-up of negative charges. When a load is connected across the battery terminals, theoretically, electrons are repelled from the negative terminal and drawn toward the positive terminal.
Since copper has space in its valence band, electrons can be forced into that band of copper atoms near the negative terminal. The negative charge at the -ve terminal must act across the entire circuit as an electric field, however, but the electrons make their way atom to atom around the circuit. As in the ball-bearings in the V-groove, the force is applied electron to electron, but somehow the charge can travel electron to electron near the speed of light just as the force travels ball to ball in the V-groove.
By th way, the same applies to heat transfer through a metal conductor. It travels electron to electron although I have no idea how fast the heat propagates.
“If you have a conductor carrying a current, there is an electrical field and a magnetic field around the conductor, but neither can drive a load.”
Uhhhh, you mean voltage isn’t responsible? Voltage is derived ultimately from electric field in standard E and M. Electric field in the wire is responsible for the force on the electrons, without which they would cease to flow.
Shock horror. Poor (and historic) naming convention leads to endless arguments and confusion.
Tminmaxdiv2 (aka Tmean) is not the same as a ‘sample mean’ (aka Taverage).
All arguments regarding CLT on daily temperatures are to do with Taverage, not Tmean.
Sorry if I’m stealing someone’s thunder but despite exponential co2 release and millions of miles of new blacktop we only tied with our hottest summer ever from 1936, 85 years ago!
https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/summer-2021-edges-dust-bowl-summer-as-hottest-ever-contiguous-us/1015753
Darwin Wyatt
I can only repeat what one of this blog’s greatest commenters love to write:
” Putting CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer doesn’t make the thermometer hotter! ”
He is plain right. Absolutely plain right!
Simply because trace gases like H2O and CO2 can’t increase Sun’s radiation down to us.
The contrary is the case: they decrease it – even if by tiniest amounts. Their central role is elsewhere.
*
I propose that you think about the pictures you see via these two graphs below, and compare in each the red line with the blue and the green one.
1. CONUS (6 % of the Globe’s land surfaces)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sVA3c7j94Cr12tNcfzSQwdNX8gIV9hjq/view
2. Globe
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18lbRjGp4rkACp6EgJ2LF1YmVYATkMGcM/view
The blue line shows how many surface stations had in which year their lowest night temperature ; the green line shows how many surface stations had in which year their highest night temperature.
The two graphs are immediately derived from
http://climaterealism.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/01-08-21-OSTP-Christy-Record-Temperatures-in-the-United-States.pdf
Have some fun!
Oooops?!
What happened in 1917?
Both graphs show for this year their maximal value for the number of stations having recorded their lowest daily minimal temperature.
Strange.
What happened in 1917?
Germany declared war on USA
I think it was the other way round.
https://history.state.gov/milestones/1914-1920/wwi
“On April 2, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson went before a joint session of Congress to request a declaration of war against Germany. Wilson cited Germanys violation of its pledge to suspend unrestricted submarine warfare in the North Atlantic and the Mediterranean, as well as its attempts to entice Mexico into an alliance against the United States, as his reasons for declaring war. On April 4, 1917, the U.S. Senate voted in support of the measure to declare war on Germany. The House concurred two days later. The United States later declared war on German ally Austria-Hungary on December 7, 1917.”
AAAA you blew my joke on Bundesdon
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-858117
Oh!
Heres the stalker again.
The difference of the linear estimates between average and mean for the 138 active USCRN stations data since 2002 is
-0.02 C / decade.
Get over it.
You are just an arrogant twat. Be off with you.
RLH says: You are just an arrogant twat. Be off with you.
Ad hominems aside, the observational evidence does seem quite clear that using T_mean as a base metric to quantify changes in the global surface temperature isn’t much different from using T_average.
Except that Tmean is a lousy indicator of Taverage.
RLH says: Except that Tmean is a lousy indicator of Taverage.
I don’t dispute that, but the evidence is still clear that it doesn’t seem to matter much with regard to temperature trends.
It helps if you ignore stations that do not fit with the local averages I’m sure.
And do what Blinny does. Average everything together first to hide the disparities.
Darwin,
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-851795
You forgot:
GLOBAL COOLING UPDATE.
Idiot.
The non ending discussion about USCRN data
A. Independently of anything told by RLH, I repeat that the averaging of the hourly data
– provided by all 138 active USCRN stations
– from Jan 2002 till Jun 2021
by three different techniques
– 24 hour average
– mean aka (TMIN+TMAX)/2
– median
gives the following results.
1. Graphical representation of the three monthly averages
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11ZoqOljZDzETkMDzITuirU4E8AuXWh5Z/view
2. Looking at the data is better than eye-balling
The linear fits within the data, expressed in C / decade:
– mean: -0.38 +- 0.87
– median: -0.40 +- 0.86
– average: -0.39 +- 0.87
Smoothing the huge seasonal deviations through a yearly averaging of the monthly data gives
– mean: -0.34 +- 0.17
– median: -0.37 +- 0.16
– average: -0.36 +- 0.16
i.e. a difference, between average and mean, of -0.02 C/decade.
0.02 C per decade! I’m terrified.
Moreover, evaluating the three quadratic fits over all 234 months, using the a (x^2) + b (x) + c coefficients communicated by the spreadsheet calculator, gives a difference of
– +0.3 % for average minus mean;
– +0.7 % for average minus median.
0.3 % ! I’m terrified.
Thus, claiming that Tmean is a bad choice when compared with Taverage: that is true for some of the stations (see below), but is ridiculous when you compute, like I did above, a US global time series out of all the single stations.
*
Yeah: persons like RLH
– always will keep telling you that averages are wrong because they dilute all station specific data
but
– nevertheless have no problem at all to use these averages when needed, e.g. to endlessly repeat that this year, all global temperature averages are lower than in the years before.
*
And, of course, Roy Spencer does not show us, for CONUS plus AK, the trends for about 200 separate 2.5 degree grid cells, but luckily publishes an average of all these (the “usa49” column in his monthly file).
**
B. By posting, to show the difference between 24 hour averages and (TMIN+TMAX)/2, a link
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uscrn-diffs-fallbrook-5-ne.jpeg
to the data of the worst, most flawed example among all 138 USCRN stations, namely
53151 33.4392 -117.1904 347.5 CA_Fallbrook_5_NE
and, by brazenly adding:
” Many, many more samples purely confirm the offset. As expected. ”
RLH behaves simply incompetent.
*
Look at the list of these (latitude corrected) differences for all 138 active USCRN stations, sorted in descending order:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HbsIjsez9llph-sUqrouxf5KNjMSb2tO/view
and you immediately see that he chosed that one station showing the lowest difference, to let us believe that in ‘many, many cases’, the mean is higher than the average.
That the same Fallbrook station conversely has the highest difference between average and median makes RLH’s choice even a bit more ‘spicy’:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1K8698x5NUP420gjcGnxLIyWbI5NqW-15/view
*
No one would have expected to see the data e.g. of the station CA_Stovepipe_Wells_1_SW, top of the difference list!
But the median of the list is, with +0.03, at the stations TX_Muleshoe_19_S and CO_Nunn_7_NNE; the medians of the list halves are WY_Lander_11_SSE (+0.15) and FL_Titusville_7_E (-0.13).
Thus, if he really had had the intention to draw a fair picture of the situation, RLH would certainly not have chosen the worst possible example.
By very well doing that, he has lost any credibility in evaluating average vs. mean on the basis of USCRN data.
Do you bother to look at the distribution of temperatures during a day?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/92826_everglades-city_5-ne_profile.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/53927_stillwater_5-wnw_profile.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/53151_fallbrook_5-ne_profile.jpg
Now tell me what a mean (or a median for that matter) has to do with the true average. Nothing.
Those histograms come from the daily average profiles of the sites
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/92826_everglades-city_5-ne.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/53927_stillwater_5-wnw.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/53151_fallbrook_5-ne-1.jpeg
No wonder Bundesdon likes my circular debate pic so much
As usual: keeping far below the belt, even on the back side, instead of posting valuable things.
Your contributions to this blog are plain… brown.
As usual Blinny posts without looking at what other people do but continues on in his own arrogant way which says, you can tell me nothing. Nothing at all.
Instead of writing childish nonsense, RLH, prove me wrong, by doing the same work as I did.
And THEN, if you really, finally managed to prove me wrong, then you can write such blah blah.
You, sir, are an arrogant twat. Be off with you.
You know nothing about statistics or logic. You just do averages of everything regardless.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-858117
Means, Medians and Modes are different averages that come from normal and skewed normal distributions. They are NOT suitable for U shaped distributions of any sort, symmetrical or asymmetrical.
“U-shaped distributions have been noted for more than a hundred years. Pearson (1895) stated that U-shaped curves, because of the prevalence of extremes, may appear in meteorological phenomena”
“U-shaped Symmetric Distribution
Neither the mean nor the median is a good indicator of typical values in the set.”
RLH
Stop dodging about details, and finally show us how your full average looks like.
Your endless discussion about tiny bits concerning Fallbrook, Everglades etc becomes incredibly boring.
*
You don’t have enough courage to really, technically, contradict THIS:
1. Graphical representation of the three monthly averages
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11ZoqOljZDzETkMDzITuirU4E8AuXWh5Z/view
2. Looking at the data is better than eye-balling
The linear fits within the data, expressed in C / decade:
– mean: -0.38 +- 0.87
– median: -0.40 +- 0.86
– average: -0.39 +- 0.87
Smoothing the huge seasonal deviations through a yearly averaging of the monthly data gives
– mean: -0.34 +- 0.17
– median: -0.37 +- 0.16
– average: -0.36 +- 0.16
i.e. a difference, between average and mean, of -0.02 C/decade.
Moreover, evaluating the three quadratic fits over all 234 months, using the a (x^2) + b (x) + c coefficients communicated by the spreadsheet calculator, gives a difference of
– +0.3 % for average minus mean;
– +0.7 % for average minus median.
Thus, claiming that Tmean is a bad choice when compared with Taverage: that is true for some of the stations (see below), but is ridiculous when you compute, like I did above, a US global time series out of all the single stations.
*
And that is the reason why you keep on single station data…
*
No wonder that your greatest fans here are nicknamed
– Robertson
– Eben
“Stop dodging about details, and finally show us how your full average looks like.”
Would you like an average of the elevations too as well? What meaning do you think that would bring?
Tmean, aka (Tmax+Tmin)/2, is a terrible statistic for ALL stations. Unless you think that a U shaped daily histogram makes it the correct statistics to use. It bears but a passing resemblance to a true Taverage. USCRN daily data shows that.
Sure it is possible that if the U shaped is fully symmetrical in distribution and thus the distance between Tmean and the true Taverage is low to non-existent. But that is as much to chance as it is to anything else.
Thus all use of Tmean, in detail or in averages, is useless too.
Unless you know something about U shaped distributions that the rest of us don’t know. You’re arrogant enough to think that I’m sure.
Just as you are arrogant enough to persist in claiming that your daily data composed from hourly rounded data is more accurate than USCRNs daily figures composed from 5 min interval, sub-hourly, data and then rounded.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-856625
RLH
1. ” Tmean, aka (Tmax+Tmin)/2, is a terrible statistic for ALL stations. ”
Stop pretending things, RLH, and publish the average of ALL stations, like I did.
*
2. ” Just as you are arrogant enough to persist in claiming that your daily data composed from hourly rounded data is more accurate than USCRNs daily figures composed from 5 min interval, sub-hourly, data and then rounded. ”
And please: stop LYING like a little child.
I never pretended all what you write here. NEVER.
You were, until now, still unable to prove us that your average of ALL stations, based on your evaluation of USCRN’s subhourly data but performed in the same way as I did (*), would significantly differ from what my software computed.
WHEN will you finally do that, RLH, instead of insinuating and lying?
WHEN?
(*) Should you finally do the work: do NOT forget to eliminate all days which do not show full 24 h data…
“Stop pretending things, RLH, and publish the average of ALL stations, like I did.”
What good would that serve? Tmean is almost a random offset from Taverage across all of the stations as I have clearly shown.
I don’t lie, I look at the statistics and histograms to understand what it is worth doing ot not doing. You just do anything that Excel can do for you without any thought process attached to your work.
Do you understand what U shaded histograms and distributions means for using any ‘standard’ statistic?
“I never pretended all what you write here. NEVER.”
You lie. You clamed that your daily average composed of hourly rounded data was more accurate than USCRNs daily averages.
You, sir, are an arrogant twat. Be off with you.
“Should you finally do the work: do NOT forget to eliminate all days which do not show full 24 h data”
You mean like the daily data from USCRN does already.
RLH
” You clamed that your daily average composed of hourly rounded data was more accurate than USCRNs daily averages. ”
Sorry: this is something YOU invented, and is a lie.
I NEVER pretended that.
What I have shown is that the difference between
– my daily evaluation of the USCRN hourly data
and
– USCRN’s daily data based on their own subhourly data
lies between -0.06 C and + 0.07 C, due to USCRN’s rounding to 0.1 C.
If USCRN would round to 0.01 C, like do all other institutions (beginning with UAH), no difference would be visible.
That is something you endlessly, stubbornly try to discredit.
Feel free to continue.
“I NEVER pretended that.”
Yet you published a graph which did just that.
You, sir, are an arrogant twat. Be off with you.
my daily evaluation of the USCRN hourly rounded data
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-858117
U-shaped distributions have been noted for more than a hundred years. Pearson (1895) stated that U-shaped curves, because of the prevalence of extremes, may appear in meteorological phenomena
U-shaped Symmetric Distribution
Neither the mean nor the median is a good indicator of typical values in the set.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-858117
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-858117
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-856022
studentb reaction to suddenly realising that matter may not interact with photons impinging on it – say light of various wavelengths passing through glass –
“What if the water was black ink?”
About as stupidly pointless as saying “What if a transparent object was not transparent?”
The complete and utter ignorance of some of these idiotic climate crackpots has to be experienced to be believed.
On wikipedia Dunning-Kruger effect page there should be a link to studentb postings as Reference.
Where do the photons from ice go when they encounter a warmer object or water?
Such a simple question – why the dodging and weaving?
Oh studentb…
You really don’t know the answer to such a simple question?
C’mon… they melt just before hitting!
Das ist doch ganz einfach, oder?
Du bist ein arroganter Narr
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-858117
s,
Are you really admitting you don’t know?
That would be rare for a climate crackpot. Try for another witless gotcha. Why do you bother asking, when you think you know the answer?
Because you are not only ignorant, but stupid as well!
Here’s a question for you – why should I dance to your discordant whining?
[laughs at idiot]
You should just stick with reposting the climate propaganda from the left fake news media, debating fizzix is not working out for you.
More nonsense from studentb trying to convince others that radiation from ice can heat water x
“Stop dodging and weaving and pretending not to understand the question.
You must have been a very difficult student in class.”
He absolutely rejects physical reality, and refuses to accept that optical properties such as transparency and reflection exist! And, of course, that “light” covers all wavelengths of radiation – to a competent physicist, of course – not your average “climate scientist”, or his dimwitted followers.
In common with “scientists” who believe that clouds consisting of ice or supercooled water can emit radiation capable of raising the temperature of an unfrozen surface! All fantasy and delusion – much like the claim that climate causes weather!
Ignorance, stupidity, gullibility – who knows? Who cares?
Are those clouds warmer than outer space?
rlh…”Are those clouds warmer than outer space?”
***
Richard, why does an educated man like yourself persist in making irrelevant comments? In many of your replies to the Moon rotation debate you became obsessed with a ball on a string, refusing to accept the explanation for why the model had been presented. Or, get it that the ball on a string simply proves a body can rotate about an external axis without rotating about its own axis.
The fact that the clouds are warmer than space has nothing to do with anything. The energy producing heat on our planet comes from a star that is a lot warmer than the Earth’s surface. The notion that clouds at a temperature below the temperature of the Earth’s surface can transfer heat to the surface so as to raise the surface temperature beyond the temperature it is heated by solar energy contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
In fact, it is not possible for clouds colder than the surface to transfer heat to the surface at all.
Again, EMR is not heat, Gordon. Clouds emit EMR which transfers energy to the ground where about 95% of cloud EMR incident is absorbed, 5% reflected, and 0% transmitted.
Ball4,
Clouds are colder than the ground. When you heat them, they vanish, becoming water vapour (transparent to visible light) again.
Try warming unfrozen ground with the natural radiation of colder clouds. Maybe you are confused about the optical phenomenon of reflection (where the reflecting surface does not absorb incident photons, and is not heated as a result). Just as a mirror reflecting 5500 K sunlight does not become heated to 5500 K!
Are you stupid, ignorant, or both?
Dr. Spencer already tried showed you a test wherein liquid ambient surface water at night in Alabama in the summer was measured with a higher temperature due to absorbing added icy cirrus cloud EMR!
Proving warming of unfrozen ground with the natural radiation of colder clouds.
How do you explain that, Swenson?
Why do trolls like Swenson perpetually ignore laws of physics, observations, and commons sense?
Laws of physics.
Radiative heat transfer from T1 to T2: Q = e*A*sigma(T1^4-T2^4).
Is this law of physics wrong, Swenson?
Ground has T1 = 288K. Clouds have T2 = 250 K, for example. Space has T2 = 3 K.
Heat flow from ground to clouds Q = e*A*sigma(288^4-250^4)
Heat flow from ground to space Q = e*A*sigma(288^4-3^4)
Which is higher?
Observations:
Temperatures drop much more slowly on cloudy nights than clear nights.
Common sense:
Stand in front of your freezer with the door closed.
Now open the door. DO you feel colder now?
Why?
“Radiative heat transfer”
That’s radiant energy transfer due to a temperature difference, Nate, since the sign on Q can be positive or negative depending on sign convention chosen.
Nate, that invalid equation is NOT a “law of physics”.
You don’t understand any of this.
“The fact that the clouds are warmer than space has nothing to do with anything
…
In fact, it is not possible for clouds colder than the surface to transfer heat to the surface at all.”
Does the fact that when you place something warner than would otherwise by there mean that something will cool more slowly. YES.
Does that mean that heat is transferred from that warmer than previously body to the warmest body? NO.
Is the more slowly bit the important fact. YES.
Are you an idiot. YES.
RLH,
As you say ” . . . that something will cool more slowly.” I believe the “climate catastrophe” or some other nonsensical alarmist phrase, is based on temperatures actually – increasing!
Only delusional climate cranks are silly enough to try to convince the gullible that slow cooling is actually heating!
Nope. The Earth has cooled. It continues to do so – slowly, remorselessly, losing about 44 teraWatts of energy continuously. But hey, that’s only what real scientists say. Why not believe the fantasies of “climate scientists” who adhere to such odd notions as “heat accumulation”, measuring “temperatures” in W/m2, and believing that CO2 makes thermometers hotter!
A pack of useless and ignorant bumbling buffoons. Have you evidence to the contrary?
What has all that to do with things cooling slower if they have a blanket to one side of them or above them?
“A pack of useless and ignorant bumbling buffoons.”
He thinks not so clever insults can replace logical arguments, facts, and common sense.
Of course they don’t.
“slow cooling is actually heating”
And they think shooting down strawmen is convincing. Its not.
No one has claimed that ‘slower cooling is actually heating’.
What has been claimed is that slower cooling combined with unchanged heating results in a higher temperature.
What is claimed is that a heated object is warmer with added insulation.
“Have you evidence to the contrary?”
Yes, see the black line in top post – the black climate line is shown warmer than the last measured period. So much for Swenson’s theory. 8 years of Swenson’s college down the drain.
studentb…”Where do the photons from ice go when they encounter a warmer object or water?
Such a simple question why the dodging and weaving?”
***
No dodging or weaving, the problem is your understanding of basic thermodynamics.
For one, there is no scientific proof there is any such thing as a photon. However, if you persist in thinking in terms of photon as tiny particles that need to go somewhere, that will add to your confusion.
A photon is actually an undefined quantum of electromagnetic energy and as such (to the human mind) it must obey the rules of quantum mechanics. QM is based on the theory that an electron in a hydrogen atom orbits the proton nucleus. That electron moves between different energy orbitals, and as it drops from a higher energy level to a lower energy level it emits one of your photons, or a quantum of energy.
That quantum is defined as E = hf where E is the difference between energy levels and f is the frequency of the electron at the higher energy level. That’s the key, the f. In order that an electron jump back to the higher level, it must receive a quantum of energy with the same frequency and intensity, E.
EM from colder bodies can supply neither. Therefore EM from a cooler body is simply ignored.
It’s the same with a communication antenna. If it is designed to receive EM at a certain frequency, it will receive energy only at that frequency and to a lesser degree, frequencies around the centre frequency. EM frequencies outside the bandwidth are simply ignored.
Where do they go, who knows, who cares? It’s a moot point and has nothing to do with the pseudo-science you are trying to establish that the EM must be absorbed, just because it’s there.
“EM from colder bodies can supply neither.”
Yet in the original experiments blackbody EMR from a dry ice temperature emitter registered as absorbed incident on a room temperature receiver!
How do you explain that, Gordon?
“That quantum is defined as E = hf where E is the difference between energy levels and f is the frequency of the electron at the higher energy level. Thats the key, the f. In order that an electron jump back to the higher level, it must receive a quantum of energy with the same frequency and intensity, E.”
Yet in our earthen atm. terrestrial photons emitted at temperatures with less than that electron level jumping E are known to be absorbed by air molecules!
How do you explain that, Gordon?
Ball4,
You are an idiot. Electrons do not have shift “energy levels” at all.
For example, a body at 1 K can be raised to 2 K, by being exposed to the radiation from a body at >2 K, or any hotter temperature. Do the calculation. Use any material you choose, and try to find enough sufficiently intense energy emitted at 2 K to shift any electron to a higher level!
Your quotation is similarly nonsensical. A photon may have any energy – bounded by zero and infinity.
Frequencies do not have to be be whole numbers – this seems to be a common misconception amongst climate crackpots (and others who should know better!).
But seriously, think about what happens when you raise CO2 from 20 C to 20.0000001 C, by exposing it to the radiation from water at 25 C, or sunlight emitted from a body at over 6000 C. In particular, how does the average velocity of the gas molecules increase? How do you know the temperature has been raised?
You really have no clue, have you? Just delusions and fantasies.
Yet in the original experiments blackbody EMR from a dry ice temperature emitter registered as absorbed incident on a room temperature receiver!
How do you explain that, Swenson? Gordon appears to be stumped.
Gordo again repeats one of his delusional mantras:
Hate to break it to you, but any material which emits IR EM photons at a certain frequency/wavelength will also absorb photons at that same frequency/wavelength. The temperature of the photon’s source does not matter.
Gordo knows that he is violating the First Law from his favorite 19th century guru, Rudolf Clausius, so he simply throws up his hands and walks away from the facts.
ES,
Oh, I see – not.
Think about optics. Even in the visible light spectrum, we are surrounded by objects which allow photons to pass through without interaction. Window glass, plastic spectacles, rock salt – even carbon on the form of diamond!
In practical terms, hopefully you will accept that you cannot raise the temperature of liquid water by exposing it to the natural radiation of anything colder than ice. If you don’t, you remain an ignorant denier of reality.
By the way, I assume that you are ignorant of the fact that germanium infrared lenses are opaque to visible light? Transparent to the infrared wavelengths they are designed for, of course.
Any other idiotic fantasies you want to inflict on other climate cultists?
Swenson, Of course, physics teaches us that materials may either transmit, reflect or absorb EM radiation and that there’s likely to be different properties as a function of frequency/wavelength.
But Gordo’s post addressed the absor_ption of thermal IR photons, not transmission. After years of promoting the Second Law, Gordo doesn’t understand the First Law, which may be simply states as:
“Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. His claim, to which your apparently agree, that the photons from a lower temperature can’t be absorbed by a body at higher temperature has been proven wrong repeatedly.
“there is no scientific proof there is any such thing as a photon”
and
“Where do they go, who knows, who cares?”
Sigh. Its like wrestling with a pig.
In the dark.
Whenever Wiki pages contain exactly what people like Robertson expect, you will see them mentioning them.
But… wait. This
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_quantum_mechanics
is a perfect counterexample about which Robertson always will tell you:
“Don’t look at Wiki! They tell only nonsense”.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-858117
Oh!
Here’s the stalker again.
The difference of the linear estimates between average and mean for the 138 active USCRN stations’ data since 2002 is
-0.02 C / decade.
Get over it.
A cowardly attempt to avoid the questions
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-858117
darwyn…”Sorry if I’m stealing someone’s thunder but despite exponential co2 release and millions of miles of new blacktop we only tied with our hottest summer ever from 1936, 85 years ago!”
***
The claim comes from NOAA who have seriously fudged the surface record.
Even if their claim is correct, the record in 1936 came with a much lower atmospheric concentration of CO2, which proves CO2 does not cause warming.
More global warming means less hottest weather or less extreme weather. Or indicate the bit of cooling we have had- and random chance. And/or we still in Min type conditions.
-Sunspot number: 0
What is the sunspot number?
Updated 18 Sep 2021
Spotless Days
Current Stretch: 3 days
2021 total: 59 days (23%)-
Still, probably won’t get 100 before end of year,
Thermosphere Climate Index
today: 5.52×10^10 W Cold
As to min and max relating to orbit:
300 km above Earth surface :
Solar Min and 50 kg mass per 1 meter square cross section:
stays orbit for 40.9 days {no reboost} and If Max: 11 days
If 200 kg mass per square meter, Min: 196.7 days and with
Max: 49.2 days
{From SMAD III}
Not sure how warm it has to get to count as Max, in terms increase drag [or Max in regards with less space radiation- though not sure our thermosphere temp directly relates to that}
I imagine 10 x 10^10 or more.
nate…”Uhhhh, you mean voltage isnt responsible? Voltage is derived ultimately from electric field in standard E and M. Electric field in the wire is responsible for the force on the electrons, without which they would cease to flow”.
***
Technically speaking, voltage is a reference to potential difference and is the difference between the electromotive force and the internal potential drop across the internal resistance of the battery or power supply. Therefore voltage is the measurement across the battery terminals (or PS) when a load is connected.
When there is no load connected to a battery a voltmeter will always read the EMF which is higher than the applied voltage. When the load is connected, current flows through the battery and results in an internal voltage drop which I have called PDint and a voltage drop between its terminals, that I am calling the applied voltage.
If there are resistors in the circuit, there is also a voltage drop across each resistor and the sum of those voltage drops must equal the applied voltage (Kircheoff’s Law). That resistor voltage can, in turn, act as a voltage source for another device.
Therefore, measuring a battery with no load connected does not always tell you if the battery is good since connecting a load could drop the EMF too a value too low to drive the load. That’s because the internal resistance of the battery is limiting the available current.
But, yeah, the voltage is the driving force that forces the electrons/charges through the circuit. The proper term for the overall driving force is electromotive force = EMF = applied voltage + PDint.
It is the EMF that produced the electric field, not the other way around. Theoretically, the EMF is a sum of the charges of individual charges created by the accumulation of electrons at the negative terminal. If you could isolated two electrons at a distance r, with their charges as q1 and q2, there would be a repelling force between them of:
F = k (q1q2)/r^2, where F is a vector.
That is Coulomb’s Law.
At the same time, each electron emits an electric field. If it is in motion, it also emits a magnetic field. Don’t ask me why, I am just the messenger. Therefore I presume that the electric field being discussed is simply the sum of all fields of electron charges.
When there is a circuit, and electrons are flowing through a conductor, there is an electric and magnetic field around the electrons.
The things is, it’s not the electric field that causes the electrons to flow, it’s the force between electrons. However, electric field, E, is related to the force by:
E = F/q, where E and F are vectors and q is a unit charge.
I’m not very good at this anymore, I have forgotten more than I know.
If you had to bug out tomorrow, due to vaccine passport/personal carbon ration card/guerra sucia, where would you go?
I am watching the political discourse regarding vaccine/climate claptrap/etc and am reminded that German Jews who saw it coming went to California while those who didn’t went to Dachau.
If the problem you are trying g to escape is global, where do you go?
IIRC the smart money is buying estates in New Zealand.
No nuclear submarines there.
The Jews didn’t have guns. We have guns. Funny how all three major vaccine companies have Jewish CEOs. All the major media outlets, Fox, CBS, NBC, NYT, NPR, are run by Jews. You’d think with their experience with the Holocaust, they’d be somewhat reticent to push mandatory vaccination or mandatory anything. The Nazis took away their liberty, and now they are in favor of infringing on the liberties of fellow Americans. Staggers the imagination.
The Deep State (Administrative State) is completely uninterested in performing the role our Founding Fathers expected the government to perform. The Deep State is completely Anti-Constitutional but is an expert at using the courts to advance its agenda. It is supported by a collection of groups (Google, Facebook, BLM, etc.) that depends on the Deep State for privileges and benefits. The Deep State intrudes on every aspect of our lives. It is completely unconcerned about protecting our border and is wholly anti-sovereignty.
Bindidon:
The ‘whys’ are more important than the numbers in almost all cases.
WHY does one station at Latitude 46.9 have a difference between Tmean and Taverage of 0.69c?
WHY does another station at Latitude 47.5 have a difference between Tmean and Taverage of -0.676c?
The average of them would tell us what precisely? That the number is something close to 0 at 0.014. But WHY?
The difference between them is also 1.366c but WHY?
Would another station at Latitude 48.5 be closer to the first or the second? WHY?
You can answer none of these questions, but point at the average and say blindly ‘nothing to see here, move along there now’.
Arrogant twat.
What are your answers, Richard?
Why would you want to know my answers when what I am attempting to do is ask Blinny what his are?
Is this “a cowardly attempt to avoid the questions”?
No idiot. It’s an attempt to get some clear answers. Which neither you nor Blinny have.
So you don’t have answers to share.
Interesting.
I have answers but you don’t. See the difference.
I note that you don’t even attempt to provide an answer yourself.
They’re not my questions, dummy. When I ask myself a question I find important, I try to answer it. What about you?
How’s about I have an answer but want you to provide yours first? Idiot.
I note that you still don’t have an answer for yourself.
My own question is rather: why is our dummy play the Riddler?
Because neither you nor Blinny know what the limitations of Tmean are. Or why it should vary by so much over 2 such similar stations.
Come on. You said you that Tmean was just another mean. Prove it.
A simpler explanation is that you’re playing Riddler because you’re an arrogant twat who cannot commit to clear claims without putting yourself a foot in the mouth.
Take for instance:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-850521
So yet again you’re going to claim you know what the Unknown is. Like the answer to why Tmean is so different is Unknown to you.
“unknown implies unknown” is not the same as “unknown equals another unknown”. Idiot.
> “unknown implies unknown” is not the same as “unknown equals another unknown”.
The claim was “if any input is unknown then unknown”, dummy. There are three-valued logics where this is false. If there’s a U out of AND, OR, and NOT, then you can’t define implication with them. It needs to be defined in its own terms.
Keep wriggling.
Many-Valued Logic is not the same as 3 valued logic in that it just proposes there are many values for true and false. It makes no claims as to the value of Unknown.
“The claim was ‘if any input is unknown then unknown'”
That is straight out of the definition of 3 valued logic. Idiot.
“There are three-valued logics where this is false.”
True-False-Unknown overrides all of them. It even has practical implementations.
> Many-Valued Logic is not the same as 3 valued logic
Three-valued logics are many-valued logics, dummy.
An AI (and all sensible humans too) knows what it/they don’t know. i.e. it has knowledge that an Unknown exists.
“Three-valued logics are many-valued logics”
And that is where you are wrong. They are 3 valued with only 2 values for true and false. The 3rd is the Unknown.
> That is straight out of the definition of 3 valued logic
I showed you that L3 (note the number, dummy) defines implication as “unknown implies unknown” as true, dummy.
This refutes your claim that “if any input is unknown then unknown.” Here’s L3’s creator, btw:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jan_%C5%81ukasiewicz
God you’re dumb:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-valued_logic
You still don’t get it. ‘unknown implies unknown’ is not the same as ‘unknown is equal to another unknown’.
Just as you still don’t know how fragile Tmean is and why?
Keep deflecting, dummy:
[RICHARD] If any input is false then false, otherwise if any input is unknown then unknown, otherwise true.
[JAN] In *my* L3, “unknown implies unknown” is true.
You still don’t get it do you?
Draw a Venn diagram if that will help you.
Make an area and call it True. Make another area call it False.
Label all of the rest as Unknown (as it is yet to be discovered by you or anyone else).
All of your other n-valued logics purely create other areas labeled as you so wish. Nothing can cover all of the area labeled as Unknown.
As I said before, all AIs and other sensible people know that there are things that they don’t know. i.e. Unknowns.
You can persist in your word games all you like. Nothing will change the realities of the description above.
Whilst you at it, tell me again why it is that Tmean is so fragile and not very useful as a statistic in temperature. I think I know the answer but for you, at least, it is still an Unknown.
> Nothing can cover all of the area labeled as Unknown.
You just did, dummy. From the logical point of view, it does not matter how the parts of your silly diagram have been populated. You have to work with the evaluations the logic gives you. If you’re not happy with that, you’re free to pick another one, including free logics.
Your overinterpretations constantly lead you astray. Why is that?
As Venn diagrams are obviously beyond you I’m not sure how I can explain it to you.
Mind you, you think that you know the values of all of the Unknowns….
> you know the values of all of the Unknowns
Your “Unknown” is the value, dummy!
Do you even incompleteness?
“Your Unknown is the value”
The value of Unknown is just that, Unknown. You cannot compare one Unknown with another as you don’t know what the value is.
> You cannot compare one Unknown with another as you don’t know what the value is.
U is the value, dummy. It is baked in the logic. There’s no point in having a logic in the first place if you can’t even say P = P.
And again, do you even incompleteness?
The actual value of an Unknown is Unknown. Idiot.
I can correctly say that ‘true’ = ‘true’, ‘false’ = ‘false’ and even ‘true != ‘false’ but I cannot say ‘Unknown’ = ‘Unknown’ because an Unknown does not have a ‘value’.
Unless, like you, are psychic and know the actual value of an Unknown.
Willard, as usual, is an idiot. Most AI categorization failures come about because they are based on 2 valued logic, true/false such as he champions.
Thus ‘this picture is either a cat or a dog’ fails when presented with pictures of giraffes or elephants or seals.
If you include ‘Unknown’ to make 3 value logic, then the failures are easily assigned to that category. As I said. most sensible AIs and humans recognize what they don’t know, i.e. that there are Unknowns.
They also recognize that each separate Unknown is different to all other Unknowns so they cannot be directly compared to one another.
> The actual value of an Unknown is Unknown.
An “Unknown” isn’t a thing, dummy. What you should be writing is that the actual value of an unknown proposition is unknown. Theres no such things as propositions either, but at least youd stop confusing a logics language with metalanguage.
You do realize that most logics are incomplete, right?
> I can correctly say that “true” = “true”, “false” = “false” and even “true != “false” but I cannot say “Unknown” = “Unknown” because an Unknown does not have a “value”.
U is the value, dummy, and of course you can:
https://philarchive.org/archive/KACWLW
In L3, U was meant to represent metaphysical indeterminacy, not epistemic indeterminacy. It was about states of affairs, not mind states. Under that reading, it makes lots of sense to identify indeterminate situations.
A simpler and more general way to say all this is to consider P = P without knowing anything about its truth value. If what our Hall Monitor holds, we can’t say that P = P is true. I have no idea why he thinks that AI could be powered by such a weak sauce logic, but then that’s par for his course.
“U is the value”
If you mean the U is an Unknown, then how do you know what its value is?
I mean that the value is U, dummy, just like F and T are values.
Suppose you flip a coin, and P refers to flipping head. As long as you haven’t thrown the coin, you can’t tell if that’s true or false, so the value is indeterminate. But you sure as hell can say that the result of your coin flip won’t be different as the result of your coin flip, even if it’s still indeterminate. That is, P is P.
A logic without an identity principle is quite useless.
But whilst true has a value of true and false has a value of false, an Unknown does not have a value at all.
“A logic without an identity principle is quite useless”
True and False without a surrounding Unknown is illogical.
“Suppose you flip a coin, and P refers to flipping hea”
And if it lands on its edge? Is that true or false?
> And if it lands
However it lands, dummy, if it lands in some way, it lands in that way. It does not land in any other. This should apply to anything outside the quantum realms and science-fiction.
Replace P (“the coin falls on its head”) with Q, i.e. “the coin falls on its edge.” In 3VLs, Q can be true, false, or indeterminate. In some 3VLs, we can’t even say that Q = Q is a tautology. Do you realize how debilitating that is?
But if I never look at if the coin falls on its edge or a side, heads or tails, what is the result then? Unknown.
Unless you think that everything is precisely known, which is impossible, then there will always be the Unknown.
3 valued logic with true, false and unknown as its choices is the source of all other logics. The others are subsets or derivations of that.
A Venn diagram with one area labeled ‘True’, another labeled ‘False’ and the rest to infinity labeled ‘Unknown’ truly is the basis of all other logic.
> But if
Doesn’t matter. Either you can determine tautologies such as P & P or contradictions like P & Not-P by their form alone, or you can’t. And when you can’t, you nowhere really fast. Imagine a bot having to deal with a dynamic world with that kind of logic!
***
> 3 valued logic with true, false and unknown as its choices is the source of all other logics.
You really have no idea what you’re talking about.
“Either you can determine tautologies such as P & P or contradictions like P & Not-P by their form alone, or you cant.”
But that misses out the whole problem that P & P and P & Not-P fail to capture the whole set of solutions, only a limited central part of it.
Around those 2 descriptions are a whole area of Unknowns. Things where, for whatever reasons, no conclusions one way or another can actually be drawn.
You want it that things are simple and the choices are one or another. Life and logic is not like that at all.
> Unknown things
Logic is about propositions, dummy. Statements about matters of fact, formal properties, etc. Knowledge requires at least one agent who knows or does not. There is also a matter of scope: when your SQL query returns you a NULL, this answer is only valid *within* the tables you queried.
Either there is grass on your yard or there isn’t. If there is, either there is an odd number of blades or there is even number of blades. Either you know about these states of affairs or you don’t. Going up and down binary trees is good enough for many classification tasks.
There are many Unknowns that don’t fit you simple logic however. There are many things that you don’t know. All of those are Unknowns.
3 value logic of true, false and unknown is the base class for all other logics. You can subdivide things all you like. Around everything is an Unknown.
“SQL query returns you a NULL”
When an SQL query returns a NULL, the correct interpretation is it returned an Unknown value.
There are other interpretations, dummy, but whatever the interpretation there’s only one value assignment. And the only characteristic that may share all your queries that return a value assignment is that assignment.
In other words, it does not matter in which way your statements or true, false or indeterminate. The only thing that matters, as far as your function is concerned, is that value. Everything else is a hall of mirrors you built yourself.
> The actual value of an Unknown is Unknown.
An “Unknown” isn’t a thing, dummy. What you should be writing is that the actual value of an unknown proposition is unknown. There’s no such things as propositions either, but at least you’d stop confusing a logic’s language with metalanguage.
“An Unknown isnt a thing”
Do it’s an Unknown.
No its an Unknown.
The Unknown is not an entity in your logic, dummy. It’s just an evaluation. Its ontological status is independent from the formalism in which it appears. Just like truth, which is still undefined, and in fact is taken to be undefinable most of the times.
Logic isn’t existentialism, you know.
“The Unknown is not an entity in your logic”
So a true is an entity. A false is an entity But an Unknown is not. Got it.
Word salad does not make for logic oh wise man. Just makes you an idiot all round.
> So a true is an entity.
No, dummy, it’s a value assigned to propositions. I was speaking of *truth*, not “a true.” Whatever that means.
But the value of an Unknown is not known regardless if it is an entity or not.
There’s no entity without identity, dummy.
If we know that some definite proposition P is unknown, then we know that we do not know P. That presumes we can still identify that P.
But suppose we don’t know what the P is. It’s just a placeholder for whatever indeterminate proposition you can think of. How can a logic refuse that P & P is trivially true?
“How can a logic refuse that P & P is trivially true?”
Because there is no certainty that we ‘know’ what P is.
Especially if P is Unknown.
I know that’s how you see things, dummy. You repeated it at least ten times already.
You still have to get how debilitating that is for a logic, and how there’s a simple reading that makes P & P true even if you don’t know anything about P except that it has a value in your logic.
“know anything about P except that it has a value in your logic”
But the whole point is that if P is Unknown then you know nothing about it. Including its value.
> Including its value
It’s a three-valued logic, dummy. Unknown is the third value.
Could an unknown proposition be both true and false at the same time?
“Could an unknown proposition be both true and false at the same time?”
No. Because an Unknown does not have a value.
“Its a three-valued logic”
It is indeed. True. False. Unknown.
True and False have values. Unknown doesn’t.
If you want a logical hierarchy then
Known : Unknown (Value : No value)
Known : True, False
> True and False have values. Unknown doesn’t.
You still are confusing values with their truthbearers, dummy: T, F, and U are the values.
We don’t say that T is true, false, or indeterminate. We say that some proposition P is.
***
> If you want a logical hierarchy then
No I don’t, dummy. It’s a simple question. Suppose we don’t know the value of P. You insist that P -> P can only be evaluated as U. That would be true only if P is so indeterminate that it can have different values at the same time.
In other words, if U means “either it’s true or false,” then P -> P can be evaluated as true. Goedel’s three-valued logic works that way. And it preserves the theorems of intuitionistic logic!
On the one hand we have your metaphysical incredulity based on a misreading of the SQL specification. On the other we have intuitionists. Who do you think is right here?
“> If you want a logical hierarchy then
No I don’t”
So True and False are known values.
Unknown is an Unknown value.
Idiot.
Tell me, idiot, how do you define things you don’t know?
I don’t need to define them, dummy, for once again you presume we’re talking about things. We’re talking about propositions. Propositions don’t need to be defined. They need to be evaluate.
According to your incredulous metaphysics, we can’t say that P = P because P can be indeterminate. Do you realize how silly that is? Perhaps you don’t, so consider:
You get to pick a number at random between 0 and 1 (inclusively) on the real numbers. You put that number in a box, and I don’t know which is it. I evaluate your choice using the following function: F if it’s 0, T if it’s 1, and U if it’s any other ones.
Do you really think that your number N won’t be equal to N? I hope you don’t, for that’d be silly.
Same for N -> N.
Same for everything that is unknown but preserves identity!
So what are the cases where an unknown proposition does not preserve its truth value?
For remember: we do not care what’s in a proposition. All we care about is it’s truth value!
“I dont need to define them”
So you don’t knows what you don’t know. Clearly.
“Same for N -> N”
Unless N is Unknown in which case it could be anything. True. False. Another Unknown. Anything at all.
“They need to be evaluate.”
When an Unknown is evaluated it can only produce an Unknown. But the precise Unknown it generates is in itself Unknown.
> Unless N is Unknown in which case it could be anything.
You still don’t get it, dummy.
There’s a number in that box. You know which one it is. I don’t. For me it’s N.
How can N be different than N even if I don’t know which one it is?
But there could be just as easily no number at all. After all the number is unknown. That means it is unknown if it actually exists also.
You want it to be an already known answer, a number, but it might be a letter, a cat (alive or dead), a picture of my mother, empty or a load of other things too.
Unknown means all of those and more and none of them are the same as each other.
> there could be just as easily no number at all
If there is no number, then there is no number. It can’t be that at the same time there is a number there is no number. Do you agree?
If you do, then you haven’t used your pet logic!
Srsly, Richard. Back away from that horse. You obviously are biting more than you can chew, and your misguided interpretation of three-valued logics (as if SQL found the Holy Grail behind the fabric of reality) fools no one.
As I said.
You want it to be an already known answer, a number, but it might be a letter, a cat (alive or dead), a picture of my mother, empty or a load of other things too.
Unknown means all of those and more and none of them are the same as each other.
> You want it to be an already known answer
No I don’t, dummy. It’s just a simple example to show you that you may know something I don’t. Which is useful when considering how SQL evaluates queries based on local tables.
All I want is you to understand that whatever answer it might be, the answer is the answer. It can’t be one answer and another at the same time.
I mean, c’mon. Kids learn object permanence in their first years. You can do it, Richard!
“It cant be one answer and another at the same time.”
Who said it did? The answer can be Unknown though, which covers all the things that we don’t know that it might be instead.
> covers all the things that we don’t know that it might be instead.
Instead of what, dummy? There are three possible responses: T, F or U. If it’s U, it’s U. U is not a lack of response, for U forces a response from your logical system!
For most applications known to mankind, there is absolutely no need to evaluate A to know why A -> A is usually taken to be true. You certainly can’t do math otherwise!
Willard says: What are your answers, Richard?
If the quiz master provided answers then he’d just have to invent more questions to keep the charade going and would expose the limits of his own competence. There really is no upside.
See below as it was apparent that neither Willard nor Bindidon (not you either apparently) was capable of determining why Tmean was a useless statistic.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-859265
(nor you either apparently)
It’s already been demonstrated that T_mean and T_average anomalies are largely the same, that climate relevant parameters calculated from them are very similar, and the statistical basis for why this is so has been given.
You’re spinning on the trivial fact that two differently defined metrics are different while being unable or unwilling to consider the applications where those differences do and don’t come into play.
If you really care about “why” the difference between T_mean and T_average in great detail, stop posting here (literally for the last 3 months) 50 times a day and instead use those freed up hours to read the Wang paper I linked earlier and the Wang & Dickinson 2012 paper referenced therein.
“Its already been demonstrated that T_mean and T_average anomalies are largely the same”
So what? The problem is that you cannot say ahead of time why a particular site is Tmean +ve or Tmean -ve.
Any yet you will average them all together to produce a local temperature average regardless.
If you did a site by site anomaly or trend and then at the end added them up that would be quite different. But that is not what is done.
There is even a program to remove stations that do not conform to the local average. Now you know that that methodology is false, will you persist in its usage?
RLH
There are scientists who have answers to such WHY questions:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/31/3/jcli-d-17-0089.1.xml
I posted the link to the article in May.
You just need to read more of the paper than simply the abstract.
*
Now back to your boring WHYs.
Why should ALL USCRN stations show the same behavior wrt latitude?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oOTVFZhIIKtjognF219mucgxRbyd9UEA/view
The graph is only a hint on parallel facts:
– the difference ‘average minus mean’ often increases with latitude
– the difference ‘average minus median’ often decreases with latitude.
If that was not the case, the two estimates based on ordinary least squares would look different.
But… is that a reason for Stovepipe Wells to behave exactly as Fallbrook? Or for Quinault to behave exactly as Spokane?
Did anybody claim that latitude is the major point concerning these differences?
I introduced a graph showing the differences between mean and median wrt latitude in order to underline spatial dependencies of the criteria, and not to establish any mandatory correlation.
*
Here is a similar graph showing the (much smaller) differences in behavior between mean and median wrt altitude:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OKLkS2W06s-r2N1SJNL6-Dv0v6w_iX6B/view
Is there any reason for all stations behaving similar?
*
You prefer to look at single points in the landscape, RLH? Then… look at single points in the landscape.
But let me definitely show at the landscape if I prefer to do that!
Stop criticizing others, and do your own work in your own corner.
*
And feel free to further name me an arrogant twat!
I definitely enjoy.
Arrogant twat suits you and your attitude quite well.
What I need is a reason WHY individual points in the landscape are so different. You are quite unable to provide such. Indeed you appear to suggest that such a thing is not possible.
If that is the case, then all of the measurements taken using Tmean are unreliable and without basic science behind them (other than chance). So be it.
“The graph is only a hint on parallel facts:
the difference average minus mean often increases with latitude
the difference average minus median often decreases with latitude.”
Agreed. (some 20%-25% or so) But WHY is that so?
“Here is a similar graph showing the (much smaller) differences in behavior between mean and median wrt altitude:”
Oh wow! You did it with other variables too. Just like me. Nothing remotely accounts for the 7%5 or so difference that Latitude does not explain.
I tried, Elevation, RH, Wind, Rainfall, Solar to name but a few. Nothing so far gets even close.
Keep trying.
A U-Shaped distribution is a bimodal distribution with frequencies that steadily fall and then steadily rise. There is a higher chance of a measurement being found at the extremes than in the center of the distribution. Cyclical and sinusoidal measurements {such as daily temperatures} are usually in distributed in U-shapes (Bucher, 2012).
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-859265
You all could always look for other correlations. Perhaps Tmean – Taverage is correlated to …
* latitude
* climate types
* rainfall
* average annual temperature
* humidity
* elevation
* cloud cover
* …
Of course, correlation does not guarantee causality, but it would be a simple place to look. Just hypothesizing without data would be basically useless — especially with something as complex a climate. As Sherlock holmes said “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
Nothing alters that fact that Tmean is a very poor statistic for Taverage.
Also nothing alters the fact that none of your suggestions are currently applied to all of the Tmean usages, current or historic.
But I welcome the fact that you recognize that Tmean ids not the way to go.
P.S.
* latitude – DONE already
* climate types DONE already
* rainfall DONE already
* average annual temperature DONE already
* humidity DONE already
* elevation DONE already
So far, nothing comes close.
“But I welcome the fact that you recognize that Tmean is not the way to go.
I recognize that all statistics have shortcomings.
Tmean (defined here as (max + min)/2) is the only way to go for much of the historical data, where that only min and max were recorded each day. Then we are stuck with Tmean
Taverage (averaging hourly or better) certainly gives a more accurate picture of the day’s temperature. But only a small amount of relatively recent data can give this number.
Without in-depth analysis, I suspect that both give similar trends — both locally and globally. Ie if Taverage went up 0.13 C/decade over the past 3 decades then Tmean would also have gone up about 0.13 C per decade.
If all you want is trends, then either should work (just be careful not to mix the two). If you do want to merge the two, then your sort of analysis would be very valuable.
PS I am curious what you did to conclude that none of these are strongly correlated. It seems that with all the interactions, you would want hourly data for T, humidity, clouds, and pressure for a few decades for as given location. Then for a given site you could find things like ‘cloudy nights cause Tmean to be higher than Taverage’. or ‘humid winter days have Tmean lower than Taverage’.
But that would only be for 1 site. Then you would want to do that for 100’s or 1000’s of sites with varying elevation, climate type, etc to see of the local correlations are consistent over general groups of sites.
“I recognize that all statistics have shortcomings.”
Indeed they do. Which is why you should choose carefully the ones you relay on. I assume that you recognize that mean, median and mode
are not the ones to use on U shaped distributions.
“Tmean (defined here as (max + min)/2) is the only way to go for much of the historical data, where that only min and max were recorded each day. Then we are stuck with Tmean”
Just accept the built in errors and thus perpetuate their inclusion without any attempt to remove them. I think not.
https://www.n*c*d*c.noaa.gov/crn/qcdatasets.html is the source of data I used for the correlations. Look under the ‘documentations’ tabs.
“Then you would want to do that for 100s … of sites”
Try the 138 sites that USCRN mark as being currently active and not experimental, test or closed.
And, yes, I do know how to perform accumulations, both in time and space.
“Tmean (defined here as (max + min)/2) is the only way to go for much of the historical data, where that only min and max were recorded each day. Then we are stuck with Tmean”
No we are not “stuck”
We have TMAX and TMIN
We don’t need any average
People don’t live in an average temperature.
They live in a local temperature, and in their home towns they are most likely to notice changes in TMIN and/or TMAX.
If TMIN is increasing, but TMAX is not, people could be very happy with that change, which ould feel different than if TMAX was increasing and TMIN was not.
In fact, when considering the global warming since the 1970s:
TMIN has been increasing more than TMAX.
And the warming was strongest in the colder northern areas of the Northern Hemisphere.
And the warming was mainly in the colder months of the years.
And the warming was mainly at night.
All of those facts are hidden by the use of a single global average temperature.
“TMIN has been increasing more than TMAX.”
But does that mean that Tmean, (Tmin+Tmax)/2, has increased in exactly the same ratio as Taverage. i.e. the trends are the same. Seems unlikely.
Richard, I was addressing the specific issue of choosing one measure of the central tendency, ie choosing between Tmean or Taverage (or Tmedian or Tmode etc). In that case I we are ‘stuck’ with the fact that much of the historical data only includes Tmax and Tmin, so we simply cannot calculate Taverage.
I do agree 100% that we can and should work with the full, original data when we are trying to dig deeper (eg whether Tmin is increasing faster than Tmax).
And I applaud RLM for trying to find deeper trends. There could be publishable results if he keeps digging.
Now I understand what is causing the Tmean to Taverage differences, then all is needed to create a function that can adjust Tmean so that it is closer to the true Taverage regardless. That means that it will also work for Tmeans that have historical roots or current ones also.
It appears to be rooted in the differences between the 2 ends of the U shaped yearly distribution, with Summer and Winter being more important than Spring and Autumn. That also shows up in the Daily distribution also but yearly is something we can more easily collect.
The problem is not specifically that the data is “U-shaped”. The problem is that the data is asymmetric.
For a pure sine or a simple sawtooth or simple square wave, Tmean = Taverage = Tmedian.
For example,
1 2 3 4 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 4 …
1 1 1 1 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 1 5 …
1 1 1 3 5 5 5 3 1 1 1 3 5 …
are symmetric and have Tmean = Taverage = Tmedian = 3
something asymmetric like
1 1 1 3 5 3 1 1 1 3 5 3 1 1 1
will have different values for mean (2.5) average (17/8 = 2.125) and median (1)
Oops … got the average wrong in the last set, but you all get the point.
Indeed I do. My thoughts are that the asymmetrical yearly profile and its histogram for any given station show the reasons why Tmean, (Tmin+Tmax)/2, and Taverage are different over the ranges they are.
If there are more in the lower histogram buckets, then the Taverage will be lower than the Tmean (assuming that the range of the histogram is normalized). If there are more in the higher histogram buckets then the Taverage will be higher than the Tmean.
If this turns out to be the case, and the factor so disclosed is linear or repeatable enough, then an adjustment to Tmean can be produced for both historic and current records.
What this will do to recorded temperatures and trends is unknown at this time, but it likely to have some effect overall.
Sorry, that should be average daily profile over a year, not the yearly profile. I was not clear.
“The Strange Orbit of Earth’s Second Moon”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vU-g6mC1F0g
What the Earth has 2 Moon’s? Are they both always facing the Earth?
Thanks. An interesting video.
rlh…”The Strange Orbit of Earths Second Moon”
***
Mathematical rubbish. Not to say that mathematics is rubbish but mathematics as applied in the video is rubbish. He even admits the asteroid does not orbit Earth.
I am still awaiting your rebuttal to my mathematical proof that the Moon is not rotating about a local orbit. And don’t use the rubbish adjective until you have successfully debunked my proof.
“I am still awaiting your rebuttal to my mathematical proof that the Moon is not rotating about a local orbit.”
Nothing I present as a ‘proof’ will be acceptable to you I suspect. The fact is that the Moon rotates on its axis once per orbit of the Earth. The rest like your tangents, etc. is drivel.
At any given moment in time the front of the moon, the pointy end, is facing in the direction of travel. If it were rotating, the pointy end would not always face in the direction of travel. Ipso facto Moon does not rotate.
Moon is orbiting the earth. Gravitational pull between earth moon gives it angular velocity. Angular velocity is not the same as rotational velocity.
“At any given moment in time the front of the moon, the pointy end, is facing in the direction of travel.”
Why? Newton says it will point at a fixed start unless some force acts on it.
“If it were rotating, the pointy end would not always face in the direction of travel. Ipso facto Moon does not rotate.”
So it rotates once per orbit of the Erath wrt the fixed stars but that means it doesn’t rotate. Got it.
I note that you do not challenge the actual ‘orbit’ in question. The kidney shape I mean. True it may not be as repeatable as an ellipse over the millennia but that for now is what the path being traced is.
RLH you should watch your own video. The second ‘moon’ isn’t a moon. Its an asteroid orbiting the sun. The kidney shape is its orbit in relation to earth; its not orbiting earth at all.
An orbit means that something is doing a repeatable pattern which in the broadest sense means that a kidney shape orbit around the Earth is still an orbit. Even the Moon orbits the Sun rather than the Earth if you so wish.
An orbit means that something is doing a repeatable pattern around another object. The asteroid is orbiting around the sun. Its not orbiting earth. Nowhere in the video does the presenter make that claim.
The Moon is orbiting the Sun also.
https://www.wired.com/2012/12/does-the-moon-orbit-the-sun-or-the-earth/
Earth has a lot of Quasi Moons or Quasi satellites or maybe more precise phrase Claimed moons.
Or let me coin “not sure how long exactly they going to remain or when we get another one- or detect another”**
Venus has one, or one has be detected so far.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claimed_moons_of_Earth
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-satellite
22 on both lists not counting 2 claimed to be “destroyed” {or ejected} though counting 22 of which could have various questions/uncertainty
** what seems new to me, is the idea they change to horseshoe from L-4/5
“On the longer term, asteroids can transfer between quasi-satellite orbits and horseshoe orbits, which circulate around Lagrangian points L4 and L5. By 2016, orbital calculations showed that all five of Earth’s then known quasi-satellites repeatedly transfer between horseshoe and quasi-satellite orbits”
It seems we are evolving on them.
Or I wasn’t paying enough attention. It was said they last for brief time of millions of years.
“there is no scientific proof there is any such thing as a photon”
and
“Where do they go, who knows, who cares?”
Sigh. Its like wrestling with a pig.
Always a mistake. Shit everywhere and the pig enjoys it more than you do.
studentb…”Sigh. Its like wrestling with a pig”.
***
Wrestle with pigs a lot, do you?
Why don’t you offer proof that photons do exist, what they are, and how they can have momentum with no mass?
I have just offered the notion that photons are actually wavelets of EM that later combine into wave fronts.
As to the other question, who does really care where EM goes that is not absorbed. No on knows, all we know is that the 2nd law and quantum theory makes it clear the EM is no absorbed.
You seem to require an answer as to where the EM goes, which is not an applicable question. All you need to know is that it cannot be absorbed unless it has a requisite intensity and frequency. E = hf.
I need a hose.
studentb..”I need a hose”.
***
A brain would be preferable, followed by a basic understanding of science.
s,
You might have difficulty deciding in which orifice to place the nozzle of the enema hose. Both could probably do with a decent flush out, it seems.
..and some soap.
Gordo wrote another long rant, concluding:
Gordo confuses total intensity of incident thermal IR radiation with the energy of individual photons resulting from electron transitions in atoms. Thermal IR emissions in gases do not result from atomic level transitions, but from molecular level motions.
The intensity and the temperature of the radiation do not determine whether or not that energy is absorbed or not, only the frequency/wavelength is relevant. If a material emits thermal radiation at a particular wavelength, it will also absorb IR radiation at that wavelength. The temperature of the source is irrelevant, except regarding the intensity of the IR radiation source.
This is why you cannot make any kind of reasonable debate with scientifically retarded people like Nate.
Every time you demonstrate how ignorant they are and their argument wrong, they come back with a new constructed twist claiming how they knew that and the argument was about something else and on and on
It is called “The Dragon in my Garage” debate identified and explained by Carl Sagan
https://youtu.be/frI5y6tNsZg
=====================================================
Eben says:
September 17, 2021 at 12:40 PM
Nate says:
September 17, 2021 at 10:42 AM
“emitted, it will NOT warm. To raise a surface temperature, the absorbed photons must have an average energy GREATER than the average of photons being emitted”
Room temp water emits IR photons which have much higher energy than microwave photons.
And thus microwave ovens cannot heat water according to Clint’s rules..
——————————————————–
Predictably Nate doesn’t even know how microwave oven works
there are children videos that explain it, the least you could do is look it up.
https://youtu.be/kp33ZprO0Ck?t=8
Dude stop embarrassing yourself with your posting in here, find some other hobby, something easy like bottle caps collecting
====================================================
Nate says:
September 18, 2021 at 6:53 PM
ANd yet Eben has been unable or unwilling to explain what it is he thinks I don’t understand about microwaves.
“Nate doesnt even know how microwave oven works”
Of course my point was about photon energy and heating, not about microwave ovens work
This is what trolls do. They just tell you don’t understand science, but never explain WTF they are talking about.
My microwave boils water and pops popcorn. The microwave receives energy from the photons which travel from the powerplant. My photons are created from burning fossil fuels, mainly coal.
stephen…”My microwave boils water and pops popcorn. The microwave receives energy from the photons which travel from the powerplant. My photons are created from burning fossil fuels, mainly coal”.
***
True enough that the source of the energy to boil your water and pop your corn comes from the burning of fossil fuels but as someone who has delved into microwave theory at the hardware level, I refuse to call whatever is heating your water, photons. There is simply no proof that photons exist and even Einstein pointed to the truth in that, claiming that no one knows. Einstein, of course, created the notion of photons.
Microwaves are produced in a microwave oven by a hardware device called a magnetron. Note the use of the word ‘wave’ in microwave. The magnetron has cavities in which real electrons are forced to oscillate at very high frequencies (Ghz range). As the electrons oscillate they give off both an electric and a magnetic field, called an electromagnetic wave, and it’s those waves that cause water molecules to vibrate harder and warm.
You’ll notice that during the warming of several substances in a microwave oven, that some heat better than others. That is caused by microWAVES bouncing around inside the oven and adding/subtracting to produce areas of denser EM than at other areas.
Waves can add, but fluxes cannot, unless you double the density of the fluxes, which is not really addition.
Mind you, we need to acknowledge that the source of the waves is individual electrons. When forced to oscillate at high frequency they give of quanta of electromagnetic energy that has a definite frequency. If a photon is a particle of EM with no mass but momentum, how does it also have a frequnecy?
As defined, the photon makes no sense, it must be a burst of EM at least, with a frequency and intensity. How long are these bursts of EM and how do they form waves? It occurred to me just now that the quanta are wavelets, tiny waves of energy rather than a particle, as suggested by a photon.
Einstein had no idea what a photon was either.
Hey, let’s call them God thingys.
Well, whatever they are, we count them one by one or two by two, depending on whether it’s SPECT or PET.
“energy from the photons which travel from the powerplant.”
????
Uphill.
“you cannot make any kind of reasonable debate”
Where is your debate, Eben?
My point was that Clint’s ‘rules’ about photons is simply wrong.
He said “To raise a surface temperature, the absorbed photons must have an average energy GREATER than the average of photons being emitted”
I said:
“Room temp water emits IR photons which have much higher energy than microwave photons.
And thus microwave ovens cannot heat water according to Clint’s rules..”
Showing me a video about how microwave ovens work (I already know very well, thank you) does nothing whatsover to advance the debate.
Because it makes no difference HOW the microwave photons are generated or where they came from, they will be abs*orbed by water and deliver heat to it.
Thus disproving Clint’s fictional rule.
This logic should be very easy to understand, Eben. Why don’t you?
Wrong again, troll Nate.
The reason you have to twist my words and pervert physics, is that you have NOTHING.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-858942
The fact that you twist, distort, and pervert reality, combined with the fact that you can’t learn, is why you’re a braindead cult idiot.
Clint R is wrong as he always is. That’s what makes it fun.
For all those who are curious, these are the 3 USCRN stations I was talking about earlier.
Lewistown average daily profile
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04140_lewistown_42-wsw-1.jpeg
Quinault average daily profile
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04237_quinault_4-ne.jpeg
Darrington average daily profile
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04223_darrington_21-nne.jpeg
And these are the histograms pulled from the above
Lewistown histogram
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04140_lewistown_42-wsw.jpg
Quinault histogram
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04237_quinault_4-ne_profile.jpg
Darrington histogram
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04223_darrington_21-nne_profile.jpg
The variable, asymmetrical, U shaped distribution is clear to see.
And the reason for both Tmean and Tmedian being rather useless also.
Taverage is accurate and only Taverage. All the rest is wrong and driven by the asymmetry.
It is not as though this is anything new.
“A U-Shaped distribution is a bimodal distribution with frequencies that steadily fall and then steadily rise. There is a higher chance of a measurement being found at the extremes than in the center of the distribution. Cyclical and sinusoidal measurements {such as daily temperatures} are usually in distributed in U-shapes (Bucher, 2012).”
Daily temperatures clearly fall within the definition of “Cyclical and sinusoidal measurements”
“U-shaped distributions have been noted for more than a hundred years. Pearson (1895) stated that U-shaped curves, because of the prevalence of extremes, may appear in meteorological phenomena“
“For all those who are curious”
We’ve seen this many times. No one is curious anymore, RLH.
And yet you persist in claiming that Tmean is a useful statistic.
Somehow, even though Tmin is supposed to be rising faster than Tmax, Tmean will stay in exactly the same ratio to Taverage all by the magical effects of GW.
Nothing to do with the U shaped distribution at all.
Greetings Roy,
Thanks for your writings and talks on global warming (www.drroyspencer.com).
My contrarian paper has been published:
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019EA001015
Is it possible to post my paper in your blog for discussion?
Thank you.
A quick look makes me very suspicious.
For a start, 43 equations !
No mention of degrees of freedom in the data when generating the fits to the data. I suspect the author has generated fits that are statistically insignificant given (a) autocorrelation in the data and (b) the use of non-linear fits with adjustable parameters.
A common error with arm-chair amateurs.
professor P says:
“I suspect the author has generated fits that are statistically insignificant”
So model nearly identical to observation is insignificant?
Setting this aside, the main point of my paper is that a nonlinear model should be used to relate solar forcing to global mean temperature instead of the common linear model of climate models. Do you have objection to this statement?
Here is a hint.
I can draw a line between any two points for perfect fit.
Yet the fit is meaningless.
Here is another exercise for you.
Generate random pairs of data and draw a scatter plot.
Now find a line of best fit. Nothing of interest is the result.
Now smooth the data, once, twice, three times and more. Each time you can find a line of best fit which progressively gets better and better according to R squared. Hurray! But in actual fact all you are playing with is random data with absolutely zero information content. I suspect you have done the same thing and are guilty of self-deception.
Nothing in nature is truly random (except maybe pure white noise).
Anything to do with temperature is driven overall by cyclic behaviors. Day/Night Summer/Winter etc.
Therefore nothing to do with temperatures, though they maybe quite complex, is actually truly random.
“Anything to do with temperature is driven overall by cyclic behaviors. Day/Night Summer/Winter etc.”
FALSE. Weather is not cyclic.
Low pressure/high pressure is not cyclic?
High temperature/low temperature is not cyclic? At all?
p,
Oh, climate crackpots who stridently demand “Show me equations'” get all upset if someone does! 43 equations! Shock, horror!
As to arm-chair amateurs, I assume you mean people who pretend to be “climate scientists”. An erratic mob of wannabes, unable to succeed in any real scientific field.
I’d be more inclined to point out a couple of physical impossibilities the author blithely takes for granted, but to each his own, I suppose.
Just damn!
Girma,
Can you summarize the physical mechanism behind the math you show?
Nate
The physical mechanism is the second principle of thermodynamics that heat must flow downhill the temperature scale from the warmer mixed ocean layer to the colder deeper ocean that gives the secular trend in the global mean temperature.
This second principle also explains the seasonal oscillation in the sea level, global mean temperature, atmospheric CO2 and ocean heat content as given in the caption for Figure 6 of the paper:
Because the heat capacity of the atmosphere is only 1/29th that of the mixed ocean layer, the atmosphere is seasonally heated to a higher temperature and cooled to a lower temperature than the mixed ocean layer. As a result, during the seasonal solar heating from March to September, heat flows from the warmer atmosphere to the relatively colder mixed ocean layer, resulting in the seasonal global sea level rise shown in Figure 7. During the seasonal cooling from September to March, heat flows from the relatively warmer mixed ocean layer to the colder atmosphere, resulting in the seasonal global sea level fall shown in Figure 7.
Girma, The colder ocean below the mixed layer is relatively isolated from the surface. It’s cold temperature (near freezing) is the result of centuries of sinking of dense, salty cold waters at a few locations at high latitudes. In a sense, your ocean “flywheel” is being continually re-supplied with that sinking water. How do you include this process in your math?
Most of that is reasonable, but doesnt explain your nonlinear math for GW, that the response to solar forcing is proportional to Delta T of warming??
“In a sense, your ocean flywheel is being continually re-supplied with that sinking water.”
Indeed the colder water is flowing upwards all the time.
Narte
Here is the summary of the mechanism
The nonlinear empirical solar forcing model of this study given by (Equation 42) was an implementation of the thermal flywheel effect of the deep ocean on climate change described by Hoffert et al. (1980): “There has existed for some time the impression that the deep oceans of the world, by virtue of their extremely high heat capacity relative to the atmosphere, may act as a kind of thermal flywheel, providing temporary heat storage during periods of climatic change and affecting the rate of change of global surface temperatures over timescales of years to centuries.” In the empirical model (Equation 42), by including the effect of the accelerating initial global warming rate on change in the secular GMT the thermal flywheel effect of the deep ocean on change in the secular GMT was taken into account as shown in Figure 9c.
Professor P says: “A common error with arm-chair amateurs.”
Data = Model + Noise (Residual)
One of the methods of finding the model in the above equation is moving averages. Then we check that the residuals (Residuals = Data – Model) do not have any trend for the model to be valid. This is the standard method of data analysis. We also check whether the residuals are normally distributed by using the Normal Probability Plot as shown in Figure 11 of the paper.
The global warming for the 20th century is reported to be about 0.6 deg C. How do you determine that?
My model helps you to calculate that.
“One of the methods of finding the model in the above equation is moving averages”
Ah-ha! Moving averages is the same as smoothing the data. You have just confirmed my suspicions.
i.e. you are dealing with mirages.
Stick to raw, unsmoothed data.
Smoothing, aka low pass filtering, is what people do all the time, badly, with moving averages. Are they wrong also? Or just inept?
If you only deal with unsmoothed data, then you won’t use any form of statistics on them either.
stephen…”The Deep State (Administrative State) is completely uninterested in performing the role our Founding Fathers expected the government to perform”.
***
No one in the days of the Founding Fathers, would have put up with the bs offered today in lieu of democracy. That’s what we have to start doing today, ignore the b***ards and carry on with our lives.
We already do that to a degree by walking across a street against a red light (I am sure that will shock climate alarmists), or answering a cell phone while driving when it’s against the law. We need to step it up to higher levels.
Here in British Columbia, where a vaccine passport has been issued, some restaurants are simply ignoring it. I am hoping this will eventually kill the Nazi document.
Any other suggestions for civil disobedience?
Godwin’s Law :
“A law that states that as the length of a thread proceeds on a newsgroup the probability of a comparison with Hitler or the Nazis approaches one. A number of groups have the tradition that when this happens the discussion is regarded as over.”
i.e., GR, you lose.
DMT,
You obviously have all the hubris of a certain US President who had a large sign painted declaring “Mission Accomplished”, hoping that fantasy would overcome fact. Unless the “Mission” was to kill a large number of people (mostly foreigners, of course) at great expense, for no particular benefit to the US population
Maybe you could name one rational person who cares about your views on anything at all?
No? Why am I not surprised?
Carry on being a dimwitted troll.
“Maybe you could name one rational person who cares about your views on anything at all?”
I can name quote a few irrational persons – beginning with yourself.
dmt…”i.e., GR, you lose.”
***
I disregard loser allegations from idiots. I pay heed to bona fide replies with a scientific content.
I’m not playing games therefore I can’t win or lose.
No point whining to me because your lack of focus, comprehension and intelligence prevents you following a long post.
Loser!
dmt…”i.e., GR, you lose.”
***
I disregard loser allegations from idiots. I pay heed to bona fide replies with a scientific content.
I’m not playing games therefore I can’t win or lose.
No point whining to me because your lack of focus, comp.rehension and intelligence prevents you following a long post.
“I pay heed to bona fide replies with a scientific content.”
No you don’t. You still persist in your stupid delusion that the Moon does not turn once on its axis per orbit of the Earth.
“I pay heed to bona fide replies with a scientific content.”
Oh puleez, Gordon.
That is one of the biggest whoppers ever posted on this blog.
There are too many occasions to be counted, when you simply ignored scientific replies that debunked your claims.
Yeah, but does it compete with what causes the phases of the Moon?
“I disregard loser allegations from idiots.”
Sorry Gordon, you don’t get to decide.
You are a LOSER.
Continue to stand up, GR. As the world financial system collapses, the left will try to take advantage-never let a crisis go to waste. We can’t let them. They don’t care if it crumbles into a pile of rubble as long as they’re standing on top of the pile.
World financial system is always collapsing. Probably due to short life time of humans- will AI change this, or will happen with the software updates?
“We cant let them.”
Can’t we just wait, and then get to hang them, all together?
Gordon Robertson at 8:32 PM
Yes, here are 2 suggestions just for you:
1.- Ignore the speed limits, and
2.- don’t wear seat belts.
Live long, or not.
E Swanson wrote earlier –
“. . . that the photons from a lower temperature can’t be absorbed by a body at higher temperature has been proven wrong repeatedly.”
Incomprehensible as well as meaningless. Presumably, this is meant to justify the climate crackpot stance that a body can have its temperature raised by being exposed to the radiation from a colder body, which is complete and utter nonsense.
A moments thought would dictate that if a colder body loses energy to a hotter, the it must cool even further, while the hotter body, gaining energy would become even hotter! Ridiculous and fantastical.
The stupidity of this sort of thinking can be demonstrated by immersing an ice cube totally in a mug of hot coffee. It will be observed that the ice heats, becoming water. The coffee cools. After a time, thermal equilibrium occurs. The water from the ice can no longer be distinguished from that in the coffee drink by virtue of temperature. Physics rules, rather than the silly semantic contortions of climate cultists.
No GHE. No “heating” by “slower cooling”! Just a ragtag pack of bumbling buffoons, trying to appear intelligent. Cargo cult “science” writ large.
Mike Flynn, Milling Flamenco,
You say-
“Incomprehensible as well as meaningless.”
It’s one or the other!
Cheers.
Witless Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Mike Flynn, Milling Flamenco”
Comprehensible? Meaningful?
One or the other? Neither?
Who would accept your authority on what is meaningful and comprehensible (except someone even more intellectually impaired than yourself)?
You might just as well play with yourself (or Ken Rice). Nobody else seems interested in your inanities.
Mike Flynn, Masterminding Frailty,
Think about it for a change-
If you can’t understand some message M, how can you be sure it’s meaningless?
You can’t.
If *Ulysses* is beyond your reach, don’t blame James Joyce.
Willard being an idiot is a certainty however.
Swenson/Flynn repeats his usual red herring argument conflating the effects of a body simply cooling via radiation while receiving IR EM from a cooler body with the situation in which the warmer body is being heated by an external source. In Swenson’s case, the warmer body will continue to cool, no matter the effects of the IR thermal radiation from the cooler body. In the real world case with the warmer body being supplied external energy and thus continuously emitting IR radiation at a some steady state temperature, the effect of back radiation from the cooler body will be to increase the warmer body’s temperature.
Of course, Swenson ignores the basic facts of absor-ption and emissions of thermal IR radiation in solid materials. Just another round in the Swenson troll’s anti-science disinformation efforts.
Wrong E. Swanson. You are under the delusion that “cold” can warm “hot”. That’s why you MUST believe that all photons are absorbed.
The reality is that photons can be reflected. It is not uncommon for photons to be reflected. It happens all the time.
I bet you won’t understand any of this.
pups, In case you haven’t heard, good reflectors tend to be bad emitters. The properties vary with wavelength. But, the entire discussion is about emitting surfaces, i.e. with near black body properties which also absorb photons. I’d say that makes you a loser.
E. Swanson, the discussion is about Earth’s surface, with is NOT a black body. It reflects quite well, that’s why you can see it. You are seeing “reflected” visible wavelengths. IR reflects just as easily as visible. It’s all based on compatibility of wavelengths.
No matter how you twist and distort reality, 264K can’t warm 288K.
“You are seeing “reflected” visible wavelengths.”
Yet we see live sunlit green plant leaves not the reflected yellow of the sun! How do you explain that Clint R?
“It’s all based on compatibility of wavelengths.”
Green wavelengths are being REFLECTED.
pups, the discussion is about thermal IR EM, not radiation in visible wavelengths. The discussion includes the Green Plate Effect, as well as the absor-ption of the Earth’s surface. True, the IR emissivity of the surface isn’t a black body, the land and ocean areas have quantifiable IR emissivity approaching 0.95. The amount reflected is (1.0 – emissivity), so there will be some portion reflected while the rest is absorbed.
You all continue to ignore the fact that a surface which can emit thermal IR EM at some wavelengths, may also absorb at that wavelength.
“Green wavelengths are being REFLECTED.”
We see reflected sunlight as yellow not reflected green Clint R but I wouldn’t expect you to understand optics or even basic physics.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-863059
Clint R: Why do we see the sky as blue and the Sun as yellow when above the atmosphere the Sun is white?
Clint R
What people can’t understand is why you think posting false and incorrect physics will convince posters you know what you are talking about. You make wrong conclusions often.
The invalid equation is used extensively in engineering. You are totally wrong but too ignorant of physics to accept your lack on knowledge. You just keep making up false and misleading ideas. Not sure who you are trying to deceive with them. Maybe yourself. Bad physics and bad ideas. Just things contrarians make up. You never provide any evidence for your stupid ideas but think everyone should accept them. Then you call this science. You call science a cult but your version of just throwing out false unsupported idea is what you deem science but evidence based conclusions you call cult thinking. Why do you need to do this? What does the constant lying and misleading information do for you?
https://www.engineeringenotes.com/thermal-engineering/heat-transfer/coefficient-of-radiant-heat-transfer-thermal-engineering/30883
Norman, you misrepresent me, falsely accuse me, and provide links you can’t understand, because you’ve got NOTHING.
Clint R and his tiny, tiny clique do not understand science or gravity even though they claim they do.
GHE is getting falsified from every direction. Seems almost like a monthly event that someone falsifies GHE and still the devotee’s march-on with their government clowns. It isn’t about science. It is about their agenda.
Just one would be nice.
You got one falsification of the greenhouse effect?
Just one?
One good one, not ten thousand bad ones.
bob, the AGW nonsense is built on a house of cards. All that is necessary is to pull out one card. But, almost all of the cards have been pulled out!
Your house of cards is held up by your cult beliefs. That’s it.
Pick your best support of the AGW nonsense and I’ll debunk it for you. What do you like — “33K”, “cold warming hot”, “trapping heat”, “sky is hotter than Sun”, “two ice cubes are hotter than one ice cube”, or some other nonsense?
None of those strawman.
We are going over your head here.
CO2 emits infrared radiation based on the temperature of the gas and the concentration of the gas.
Some of this radiation strikes the ground and decreases the rate of cooling of the ground.
This also works for water vapor and other polyatomic molecules in the atmosphere.
You are going to claim the infrared is reflected but that is bullshit.
If a surface can emit radiation, then it can accept it, that’s a law named after some physicist.
So you’re going with “slowing the cooling is warming”.
The debunk is putting an ice cube in a cup of hot coffee.
Next….
Clint R,
Nice try, but you replace my argument with a straw man.
Putting an ice cube in a cup of hot coffee cools the coffee and warms the ice cube.
It increases the rate of cooling of the cup of coffee, not decreasing it, you got that one bassackwards as usual.
Take a pot of coffee, pour a cup in a regular coffee cup and pour a cup into a thermos, an hour later measure the temperature of both.
Does the thermos make the coffee in the thermos hotter than the coffee in the regular cup an hour later or what?
Dumb as a bag’o’glass!
braindead bob, an ice cube emits a photon with 50% more energy than your “fearful” CO2. If ice doesn’t scare you, why are you so afraid of CO2.
It might be because you’re braindead.
Or Clint R is wrong. Which happens all the time.
Clint R,
You don’t understand the difference between how a cube of ice emits photons and how CO2 emits photons.
That’s because you never took the appropriate physics courses.
The radiation from CO2 can be used to melt steel, the radiation from ice, not so much.
I almost missed this one! Braindead bob believes CO2 can melt steel!
He’s referring to a laser, of course. And he conveniently forgets the design and energy required for the laser to work.
Classic….
Oh you missed this one dear Clint R,
The point being, it’s the same infrared radiation from CO2 molecules that are being emitted, and those are melting the steel.
But the main problem here, and evidence that you dear CLint R are the braindead zombie one, is that you are using Wien’s displacement law and applying it to CO2 in the atmosphere.
The greenhouse effect doesn’t work that way dear boy.
Remember what the emissivity of CO2 is dear boy?
Oh yeah,
Where was that debunking of the greenhouse effect?
Putting an ice cube in your coffee doesn’t do it.
Earlier, Ball4 attempted a stupid gotcha –
“Yet in the original experiments blackbody EMR from a dry ice temperature emitter registered as absorbed incident on a room temperature receiver!
How do you explain that, Swenson? Gordon appears to be stumped.”
It is possible that Ball4 is unaware that radiation of all frequencies is capable of being detected and measured by means of suitable apparatus. Even a moderately priced IR non-contact thermometer will read temperatures of -60 C (even if the instrument is held by a bare hand), so I would refer Ball4 to the same textbooks which he so assiduously babbles about.
If Ball4 actually comprehended some of what he demands other people read, he might be able to formulate more rational “gotchas”. Hell will probably freeze over before Ball4 accepts reality, though.
So the Roberstson rule “Heat cannot of itself cannot move from a colder object to a warmer object” becomes
“Heat cannot of itself cannot move from a colder object to a warmer object except when being measured by suitable apparatus.”
Or ‘heat is an illusion’ and cannot be measured.
Still nothing!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-2020-0-54-deg-c/#comment-556191
Gordon Robertson November 20, 2020 at 7:10 PM
Well, a quick check of the NASA misconceptions page reveals that as-of-today it still reads as follows:
hehehe
TM,
It took the lads at the National Science Foundation several years to finally cave in, and admit that melting sea ice would not actually cause sea levels to rise! Archimedes principle persisted, in spite of climate crackpots determined efforts to fantasise it out of existence.
The lads at NASA may be brighter, maybe not.
Certainly the nitwits who think that Gavin Schmidt is a scientist don’t give much reason to think they are any brighter than the dummies at the NSF, who refused to believe that Archimedes principle applied globally.
What do you think?
[hehehe]
What do I think?
I think that it is a statistical fact that 1 out of 3 non-spinners are just as dumb as the other 2. No?
That high?
It’s a small sample, as expected, but this sub-thread confirms the statistic.
Archimedes principle only works with a constant temperature.
Floating sea ice to not floating sea ice involves a temperature change.
Hard for idiots to understand, but melting of floating sea ice raises sea level.
If may be very slight, but it is an increase, it certainly doesn’t cause sea level to go down.
Sea Level, wasn’t that a band?
To melt ice does not require a change in temperature, purely energy.
In fact sea ice tends to make the ocean colder (and thus lower) because brine flows from the bottom all the time.
“In fact sea ice tends to make the ocean colder (and thus lower) because brine flows from the bottom all the time.”
Maybe when sea ice is thicker, it happens, less.
Not really. Sea ice loses salty brine all the time until it becomes, after many years, nearly fresh water frozen instead.
RLH, AIUI, sea-ice loses that “salty brine” while it freezes. That results in an increase in salt content of the waters below which contributes to the densification that results in the THC sinking in a few high latitude locations.
“Can you drink melted sea ice?
New ice is usually very salty because it contains concentrated droplets called brine that are trapped in pockets between the ice crystals, and so it would not make good drinking water. As ice ages, the brine eventually drains through the ice, and by the time it becomes multiyear ice, nearly all of the brine is gone. Most multiyear ice is fresh enough that someone could drink its melted water. In fact, multiyear ice often supplies the fresh water needed for polar expeditions.”
Oh, I was thinking just thicker ice, but it’s more about old polar sea ice.
TM, if you were paying attention you would have noticed NASA’s only reply to Gordon was to admit Moon was only rotating “relative to the fixed stars”. They did not claim it was actually “rotating about its own axis”.
In fact, someone has been removing NASA Youtube videos in the last year or so. They got caught, so the coverup is beginning. Get screen shots of all academia pages that claim Moon is actually “rotating about its axis”. They will have value to future collectors.
That fact that NASA thinks that both you and Gordon are nutters seems to have escaped you.
Even Gordon’s nurse thinks he is a nutter.
I am wondering if Clint R has a partner who every so often whispers in his ear:
“Give it up. Let it go. Like a balloon in the wind. It is not worth getting so agitated. You will eventually feel better.”
A ball-on-a-string is only relevant to a ball-on-a-string. Nothing else.
NASA and Isaac Newton are on the same page:
EVERYONE agrees Moon rotates with respect to the fixed stars. That is NOT the issue. The issue is Moon does NOT actually rotate on its axis. If it did, Earth would see all sides of it.
Moon is only orbiting. It’s the same basic motion as a ball-on-a-string. Easy to understand, unless you’re braindead.
Clint R,
You are arguing with your self!
“EVERYONE agrees Moon rotates with respect to the fixed stars. That is NOT the issue. ”
Glad you agree the Moon is rotating, that’s all we ever said, but it has to rotate on its axis to be rotating.
“The issue is Moon does NOT actually rotate on its axis. If it did, Earth would see all sides of it.”
Here you go, contradicting what you just said above.
You just can’t understand that.
I know, I mind is a terrible thing to waste.
You should just get wasted.
Braindead bob ignored my second paragraph:
“Moon is only orbiting. It’s the same basic motion as a ball-on-a-string. Easy to understand, unless you’re braindead.”
A ball-on-a-string is only relevant to a ball-on-a-string. Nothing else.
RLH is unable to learn.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-781680
He’s braindead.
Clint R is always wrong. That’s what makes it fun.
RLH, did you know that being unoriginal is a sign of being braindead?
Clint R: Did you know that denying science is the major factor in being in a cult such as the one you are in.
Except dear Clint R,
The string is rotating, and is solidly attached to the ball, therefore the ball is also rotating.
How do I know the string is rotating?
Because I am causing it to rotate by swinging it around.
The string would be “revolving”, bob.
Next….
Clint R,
Nope the string is rotating, it’s not revolving because I am holding one end of it in my hand.
The stupid groks deep with this one.
Sorry braindead bob, but the string would be revolving. It’s the same motion as the ball, or the wooden horse on the MGR.
You can’t understand any of this. It has to do with your being braindead.
Sorry Clint R,
The string is held at the center of rotation, or the axis, which is the line that is defined as not rotating and not moving. Sorry but the string is different from the horsey on the merry go round, the ball at the end of the string, or the Moon.
The string is rotating on one end and not rotating on the other end.
Clint’s so dizzy his head is spinning like a whirlpool it never ends.
Admit it, you never took physics.
I took physics at Loomis Lab, some here might recognize that location.
Sorry braindead bob, but the string would be revolving.
No one expects you to be able to learn physics, or face reality.
You’re braindead.
Clint R,
Can’t tell the difference between rotation and revolution.
I wonder, could you get into Loomis Lab? They gave me some Bs.
But then I wasn’t a physics major, but it was physics for engineers and physics majors.
The string would be revolving, braindead bob.
You believe everything is rotating, because you must to support your cult beliefs.
Clint R,
I understand what I was taught in physics class, I don’t make shit up like you do.
“The issue is Moon does NOT actually rotate on its axis. If it did, Earth would see all sides of it.”
No it doesn’t. That is not what would happen with a single rotation about its axis once per orbit.
> They did not claim it was actually “rotating about its own axis”.
Here, Pup:
https://moon.nasa.gov/inside-and-out/top-moon-questions/
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-860891
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-861082
“Shhhh darling. Let it go.”
“sshhh, my pet. Let it go.”
TM, RLH, DMT, bob, and Willard, obviously you are so uneducated in physics you’re unable to do a basic vector diagram of orbital motion.
You have no understanding of the relevant physics, yet you cling to your cult beliefs. It’s like you can’t wait to make fools of yourselves.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint R is wrong. As always.
Where’s your “basic vector diagram of orbital motion”, braindead RLH?
Where is your proof that a ball-on-a-string is relevant to anything other than a ball-on-a-string?
Vector diagrams that show 2 vectors at right angle and thus turning into an orbital path into an ellipse show the forces operating to the COG of the bodies, not the surfaces.
The simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string is used to describe “orbital motion without axial rotation”. I have provides links to academia numerous times. But, RLH is braindead and cannot learn.
Of course gravity acts on the COG. That is what Newton proved. And, that is what the ball-on-a-string demonstrates.
Where’s your vector diagram, RLH? You seem to be all bark but no bite.
The vector diagram is the same as the ones you use. But the main point is that orbits and gravity act on the COG of the bodies concerned not the individual atoms that make them up. What that means is there is no force that makes them rotate to make them ‘face’ each other.
A ball-on-a-string demonstrates that it applies to a ball-on-a-string. Nothing else.
RLH, you don’t understand the physics. You could do a simple experiment with a string tied to a ball. The string acts through the COG, and keeps the same side facing the inside of orbit.
This stuff is easy to understand, unless you’re braindead.
You will be here all day, saying the same things, unable to learn. That’s braindead.
Clint R: It you who do not understand physics.
“The string acts through the COG”
The string is attached to the surface. Gravity is not.
“curvilinear translation”
What IS that?
Monday ENSO update
The La Nina forecast now looks like a crater and we are right on the edge of it.
Since Bidendonk cannot see it, he is about to trip and fall in to it – head first.
https://i.postimg.cc/9FfkMPKJ/19nino34-Mon.gif
I wonder what that will do to global temperatures.
What’s to wonder about?
It’s well documented that global temperature anomalies are highly correlated at about 5 months lag to El Nino/La Nina.
So you recon that it will take 5 months for a reduction in global temperatures?
Obviously there’s residual uncertainty, but the statistical expectation is for global temperature to be about 20% of the Nino3.4 index off trend at 5 months lag.
This comes from Foster Rahmstorf 2011 at least.
I was asking what sort of temperature profile you consider to be the most useful for the next 6 months or so.
Is it upwards sloping, downwards sloping, horizontal or something else?
After 5/6 months we can assume form what you have said that temperature will be lower than now. What do you think the inbetween period will be and why?
The same model applies to the next few months except we have El Nino observations rather than projects. El Nino was hovering in the lower half of “neutral” for that period, so the expectation is that UAH will be nominally flat for the remainder of the year.
This is the same projection I’ve stated for the last two months for the same reason.
On the UCAR reanalysis data, it looks like September is running slightly warmer than July and August so UAH should be up month over month.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-860960
“El Nino observations rather than projects”
We had a EL Nino in the last 5 months? That’s news to me.
“El Nino was hovering in the lower half of neutral for that period, so the expectation is that UAH will be nominally flat for the remainder of the year.”
So below the zero is flat. Got it.
Well. Bidendork is laughing at people who think there will be cooling so there can be no cooling.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/uah-global-temperature-update-for-may-2021-0-08-deg-c/#comment-719083
Blinny is never wrong. Never.
Bindeinstein only makes forecast for the past, after the facts.
He is very clever.
He will only predict La Nina after we are in the middle of it.
Predicting the future is too hard.
https://i.postimg.cc/BQX1Vg5t/predictions.jpg
Please wake me up when you see on the pic below
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/img/meiv2.timeseries.png
that the current la Nina just bypassed the La Nina in 2010/12.
THEN of course I will admit I was PLAIN wrong.
At least when fall into that La Nina crater head first try to make look funny , like a real Climate Clown
Tell me, as I’m sure you will know the answer, have there been more below the central line behavior for the last 20 years or more above the line?
And for the last 50 years?
What is this guy blabbering about, what does La Nina from 10 years ago have to with predicting this one
Another Dragon in the garage debate.
https://i.postimg.cc/cHVQW1qg/there-was-la-nina-10-years-ago-your-argument-is-invalid.jpg
Such faith in climate models!
I am always amused how denialists like to disparage climate models for their climate change predictions, but laud them for their ENSO predictions.
Is the spread in climate models as wide as those in ENSO predictions?
So the puzzle that was answered turned to amusement ?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-747863
Is the length of the predictions in ENSO longer or shorter than the climate models?
prof p …”I am always amused how denialists like to disparage climate models for their climate change predictions, but laud them for their ENSO predictions”.
***
I doubt that any professor would be as dumb as you but I have encountered a few candidates.
There is no other way to predict ENSO, and unvalidated models cannot ‘predict’. However, we don’t need unvalidated models to predict warming since they cannot predict anything.
All we have are satellite and surface temperature series to MEASURE current temps. We know the surface series are seriously fudged.
Besides, no model predicts climate change, an alarmist term introduced to mask the fact that global warming is so insignificant and not in the least apparent. The misnomer climate model is actually trying to create POSSIBLE scenarios related to anthropogenic global warming.
So 2/3rds of the way through the month is about the time that predictions for this months figures become actually relevant.
I has suggested previously that I thought that last months figure of +0.17c would be lower this month.
I think maybe that I was wrong here.
I suggest that +0.2c to +0.25c is more likely based on the data now available.
As to what happens in the next few months, I still think that the overall trends will be cooler rather than warmer however. This is still all in line with my 15 year S-G projection.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uah-1.jpeg
The potential La Nina later this year/early next year make that lower trending projection almost certain.
Blinny is never wrong. Never.
I have suggested previously that I thought that this months figure would be slightly higher than last months.
I think maybe that I was wrong here.
I suggest that +0.15c to +0.20c is more likely based on the data now available.
As to what happens in the next few months, I still think that the overall trends will be warmer rather than lower however. This is still all in line with expert predictions.
Is there an echo in here?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uah-1.jpeg
I must admit: to be always right is, as we all can see below, way cleverer than to be never wrong:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-797365
and a few following
2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-798697
2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-801060
2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-801474
2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-802757
2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-804273
2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-804349
2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-804750
2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-809945
2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-812467
2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-815065
2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-815064
2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-815060
2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-826954
Hé oui: comparé à certains, je ne suis qu'unn petit débutant, n’est-ce pas?
Science is only as good as your ability to predict future results, which in your case that is zero.
Your endless cherry picking and dissecting of the past temperatures to the fifth decimal has no predictive value of anything whatsoever,
it is as useless as the last weeks weather forecast.
Je ne parle pas franais.
Il faut tourner sept fois sa langue dans sa bouche avant de parler.
Eben
We are all lay(wo)men here, and therefore: what about stopping your utter nonsense about me having to be able to predict anything?
What do YOU do, Eben, apart from
– posting here what you personally consider to be science?
– writing stoopid polemic about me?
NOTHING.
*
Solar Flux Update
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QDIH1i34iyU4cQgkhwoUDYTYAA2Qx-7v/view
Well: if this continues in the same direction, those claiming that SC25 will behave as SC24 might need some help in the future.
Me thinks our good old Sun is now pretty good on the road, isn’t it?
Source
ftp://ftp.seismo.nrcan.gc.ca/spaceweather/solar_flux/daily_flux_values/fluxtable.txt
https://www.nasa.gov/msfcsolar
Bindenintein now cut his miss shifted chart in half so you cannot see how misaligned it is, how clever he is
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mzMcLJnNgIMleySZ1BxAZRaZPny57G8J/view
rlh…”curvilinear translation
What IS that?”
***
Try not to be a dweeb, Richard. Translation is a change in position that can be accomplished in a straight line, or wait for it…along a curved line. The straight line translation is called rectilinear translation and that along a curve is…ta da…curvilinear translation. The Moon performs curvilinear translation in it s orbit.
So “curvilinear translation” is an orbit. Why not just say so then?
P.S. Orbits refer to the COG, not the parts of a body themselves.
professor P says: “Stick to raw, unsmoothed data.”
Data = Model + Residuals
There is no modelling with out separating the data between model (smoothed data) and residuals. The critical point is that the Residuals must not have any trend. The residuals are noises that oscillate within the 3xstandard deviation (of the residuals) range.
There is no statistics with out separating data into model and residuals.
“There is no modelling with out separating the data between model (smoothed data) and residuals.”
I take that to mean you have no model unless you smooth the data. i.e. you are making something out of nothing. The truth is your model(s) are meaningless. I could do exactly the same using the price of fish to explain my football team’s scores.
Professor P should be on peer review of every paper falsifying GHE, or at least he thinks he should.
” you have no model unless you smooth the data”
You have no model unless you chose a statistic to follow. Are all statistics bad also?
girma…”The residuals are noises…”
***
Girma…how can real data points represent noise? In electronics and communications, noise is an unwanted signal created unintentionally or by internal/external factors. The data in the UAH graph is actual data, not noise.
For example, if I send a clean signal from an antenna into space, and between it and another antenna, EM from lightning introduced an EM signal in the original that does not belong, that is noise.
The only way that could happen with UAH sat data is if something was creating an EM noise signal in the oxygen emission band around 60 Ghz. Or, if after being collected by the sat antenna system, the AMSU electrons added noise in the 60 Ghz band.
It seems ingenuous to take the final data and claim there is noise in it because certain data points did not fit well with a human-made curve, or expectations.
NOAA and GISS special in cheating like that. They look at a set of data, say from 1936, and think it does not fit the narrative of a smooth global warming. So, they try to homogenize it to fit.
Just before the PDO was identified, in the 1970s, there was a sudden global warming of about 0.2C. Some scientists regarded that as noise and wanted to eliminate it. If they had, we would never have discovered the PDO.
“how can real data points represent noise?”
If the air pressure, RH, rainfall, wind, height of the surface boundary layer, etc. and hence the local weather is not recorded in the temperature series then that may well be considered ‘noise’ in that it will record a (random) offset from the ‘true’ temperature recorded.
Oh! I forgot, as many do, clouds.
Gordon Robertson says: ”The residuals are noises…”
To respond, I just quote my favourite statistical analysis text book (Ya-Lun Chou, 2nd Edition, p. 579):
“The main task of any scientific study is to discover the general relationships between observed variables, and to state the nature of such relationships precisely in mathematical terms, so that the value of one variable can be predicted on the basis of the of the other.
When the relationship between (or among) variables is sharp and precise, ordinary mathematical methods suffice. Algebraic and trigonometric relationships have been successfully studied for centuries. When the relationship is blurred and imprecise, ordinary mathematical methods are not very helpful, but statistical methods are. The special contribution of of statistics in this context is that of handling vague, blurred, ore imprecise relationships between variables. We can measure whether the vagueness is so great that there is no useful relationship at all. If there is only a moderate amount of vagueness, we can calculate what the best prediction would be and also qualify the prediction to take into account the impression of the relationship.”
So what Ya-Lun above refers to vague I refer to residual or noise.
willard and maguff…”The time it takes for the Moon to rotate once on its axis is equal to the time it takes for the Moon to orbit once around Earth. This keeps the same side of the Moon facing towards Earth throughout the month”.
***
I am still waiting for a spinner to prove that, and NASA is a spinner. Show me, using geometry, trig, or calculus, how it is possible for the Moon to keep the same face pointed at the Earth and still rotate exactly once on its axis per orbit.
It should be intuitively obvious that it is impossible. It should also be intuitively obvious that the Moon is translating like a horse, a human, a car, or any moving object around a track. Or a ball on a string, or a wooden horse bolted to a MGR.
I have already put forward the example of an airliner orbiting the Earth at 35,000 feet around the Equator and not one spinner has refuted my example. Even NASA did not dispute that, they only moved the goalposts by claiming they regard Moon rotation wrt the stars.
NASA does not get it that the motion they are considering is not rotation about a local axis. They are claiming curvilinear translation as rotation, which it is not.
I put my airliner example to NASA and they did not reply. I think the reason is obvious, any NASA engineer looking at that example should immediately see that an airliner orbiting at 35,000 feet cannot rotate about any of it axes, without crashing.
You spinners are clearly wrong about local rotation and not one of you have a supplied a mathematical rebuttal to the math I have presented. You know the reason, you cannot refute my math, either you fail to understand the math or you cannot refute it.
Studentb just screams ad homs, RLH emits parrot-like repetitions of a ball on a string, Binny is just plain hung up on the difference between libration and rotation. Swannie is as badly confused about orbital mechanics as he is the 2nd law. Norman misinterprets textbooks then offers ad homs and insults. Maguff acts like he’s from another planet. Bob D swears a lot and prof p is just plain lost.
Oddly enough, Tim came up with a great point about elliptical orbits at one point then he faded into pseudo-science. I have used his example to explain libration yet Tim clings stubbornly to pseudo-scientific explanations for the lunar orbit.
Poor darling, time to let it go. Time for bed.
> Show me, using geometry, trig, or calculus, how it is possible for the Moon to keep the same face pointed at the Earth and still rotate exactly once on its axis per orbit.
Here you go:
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4709
You’re most welcome!
willard…”Here you go:
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4709”
***
Not a proof, just an embarrassment for NASA. The animator has used the shadow cast on the lunar surface as a justification for local rotation, a trick that fools only idiots.
There is a circle around the Moon with a portion of a radial line drawn in it. There is an arrow within the circle that represents the movement of solar light/shadow on the Moon, not the local rotation the animator is trying to create as an illusion using the movement of light.
If the animator was honest, he/she would have extended that radial line to the Earth’s centre, making it plain that the line is attached to the near side of the Moon, like a string to a ball, therefore the Moon cannot rotate about a local axis while attached to the radial line.
However, the animator is too stupid to figure it out, just like you Willard, therefore, he/she cheated to create an illusion of rotation. You fell for it.
> If the animator was honest, he/she would have extended that radial line to the Earth’s centre
The line wobbles, Gordo. It’s called libration. Do you know many balls on string that librate?
It’s clearer using Bob’s favorite GIF:
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/10836
“If the animator was honest, he/she would have extended that radial line to the Earths centre, making it plain that the line is attached to the near side of the Moon, like a string to a ball, therefore the Moon cannot rotate about a local axis while attached to the radial line.”
Why would he/she do that as gravity operates on the COG of the objects, not the surfaces?
Still no scientific rebuttal, maybe NASA will check in with more illusions or obfuscation about rotation wrt stars.
No need for any of that, Gordo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
“The tidally locked body takes just as long to rotate around its own axis as it does to revolve around its partner.”
That’s soooooo WRONG!
First, there is no such thing as “tidally locked”. Second, they aren’t even consistent in the cult science. They claim planet Mercure is “tidally locked”, but it does not have rotate in synch with its orbit.
Find some more links you can’t understand.
That’s why this is so much fun.
> That’s soooooo WRONG!
Prove it, Pup.
Typo alert — “planet Mercure” should be “planet Mercury“.
Typo alert: Clint R should be ‘wrong’.
Earlier, bobdroege wrote –
“Hard for idiots to understand, but melting of floating sea ice raises sea level.”
Not according to the National Science Foundation, who were forced to revise their web page, after realising that physics triumphs over fantasy.
No wonder you got fired from your job at the nuclear plant. I assume your managers were less than pleased at being told they were idiots as well. By the why, how are you going with your quest to observe, measure, document and delineate the GHE?
Not too well? How sad.
[derisive laughter]
I have explained it sufficiently, even the NSF could understand it.
Here we go again, when there is sea ice covering the ocean, the sea water temperature is 28 F, I know this because I have measured it with thermometers I have calibrated myself. If the sea water temperature is 29 F or higher it is not covered by ice. Sea water expands when warmed from 28 F to 29 F. Therefore melting sea ice raised sea water level.
So don’t be fooled.
The greenhouse effect is documented, see the graph at the top of the page and do a correlation with the Keeling curve. Then I can explain the mechanism for you.
In fact, I have explained it to you, and you accepted that there was a greenhouse effect.
So tell your orderlies your straight jacket is a little too loose and needs tightening.
And ask them to wipe the drool off too.
“Therefore melting sea ice raised sea water level.”
Do you accept the well recorded fact that seas ice drops brine from its lower edge all the time? Do you also accept that that brine is colder than the water around it? In fact its coldness is what drives large ocean currents. That colder water has to return through the surface along other ocean current lines. From your noticing that colder temperatures produce lower sea levels are you also observing that the presence of sea ice and the world wide, colder, sub-surface, layers and their temperatures, therefore brings world wide reductions in sea levels also then?
Is not some of your ‘raising’ due to the fact that what you are doing is reducing that colder plume and its knock on effects.
I don’t know, I am just addressing a local phenomenon.
The oceans are warming, so how does that affect everything.
We do not have a sufficient analysis or measurement of if the deep oceans are actually warming and, if so, by how much. We have a model for all the good that does.
Who is this we, you and a rat in your pocket?
I didn’t mention the deep oceans, did I?
But you might want to look that up.
Not doing your homework for you.
The ‘we’ is the scientific literature.
“Below 700 m data coverage is too sparse to produce annual global
ocean heat content estimates prior to about 2005”
“Global sampling of the ocean below 2000 m is limited to a number
of repeat oceanographic transects, many occupied only in the last
few decades, and several time-series stations, some of which extend over decades. This sparse sampling in space and time makes assessment of global deep ocean heat content variability less
certain than that for the upper ocean (Ponte, 2012), especially at mid-depths, where vertical gradients are still sufficiently large for transient variations (ocean eddies, internal waves, and internal tides) to alias estimates made from sparse data sets.”
RLH,
Your quotes don’t mean there is no measurement of deep ocean heat content, and they don’t show that it is not warming there.
Post some links to support that, less certain and before 2005 don’t help your cause.
“Your quotes don’t mean there is no measurement of deep ocean heat content, and they don’t show that it is not warming there.”
Sparse data can be interpreted many ways.
E Swanson wrote –
“In the real world case with the warmer body being supplied external energy and thus continuously emitting IR radiation at a some steady state temperature, the effect of back radiation from the cooler body will be to increase the warmer bodys temperature.”
Presumably, ES is attempting to convince someone that his comment has some relevance to the climate crank fantasy that CO2 surrounding a thermometer will make it hotter! Of course, he cannot come straight out an say such a ridiculous thing, for fear of being deafened by the resultant laughter!
If he is referring to the Earth, the fact that the Earth has cooled since its creation shows that ES lives in the realms of fantasy, rather than “the real world”. Each night, the Earth loses all the heat from the previous day, plus a little of its own primordial heat. No heat “trapping” or “accumulating”.
ES believes. I wish him well, but I trust he doesn’t expect me to donate to his climate cult. If he does, he will be disappointed.
swenson… from swannie…”E Swanson wrote
In the real world case with the warmer body being supplied external energy and thus continuously emitting IR radiation at a some steady state temperature, the effect of back radiation from the cooler body will be to increase the warmer body’s temperature.”
***
Swannie…you simply do not understand atomic level physics or quantum theory.
Circa 1913, Neils Bohr was trying to understand why the hydrogen atom, with 1 proton in the nucleus and 1 electron orbiting it, radiated and absorbed electromagnetic energy at only discrete wavelengths. He hypothesized the reason was electron transitions between energy orbitals.
You can see the table here under ‘Physics’ that reveals the spectra produced by electrons from various orbital levels. It’s obvious that each set of spectral lines represent electronic transitions between various energy levels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_spectral_series
Bohr created the model for quantum theory related to electronic transitions by hypothesizing that electrons could only occupy certain energy orbital levels. When the electron aborbs energy it can jump one or more levels, and when it falls back through those levels it emits EM at a certain intensity and frequency.
There is nothing in that theory to account for your ad hoc theory that electrons in a hotter body must absorb EM from electrons in a cooler body.
Why should electrons at a higher energy level in a hotter body absorb EM of a much lower intensity and frequency from a cooler body? Explain that. What explanation do you have for why the EM from a cooler body should be absorbed by electrons in a hotter body? There is nothing in quantum theory to account for your pseudo-science.
Please don’t use a red-herring argument that electron transitions have nothing to do with this when they are the entire story. Some have tried to claim it is molecular vibrations (or rotation) that are the issue but such vibrations are due to the electrons and their transitions in the atoms of the molecules.
EM radiation and absorp-tion is only about electron transitions, there is no other theory in physics that can account for them. And transition theory does not allow absorp-tion of EM from a cooler body to a warmer body.
No absorp-tion…no warming…plain and simple….2nd law intact. Your version contradicts the 2nd law.
Sorry Gordon,
You won’t understand this.
Molecules or atoms don’t have a temperature, only collections of molecules or atoms can have a temperature.
It is molecules and atom that are doing the abbosrbing and emitting, or the electrons within those atoms or molecules.
A molecule or atom that is part of a collection of atoms and molecules that does have a temperature that is lower than another collection of molecules or atoms at a higher temperature, can emit radiation from an excited state that can be abbbsorbed by atoms or molecules in a collection of molecules or atoms at higher temperature because some of those molecules or atoms have electrons in ground states.
Repeat after me.
Molecules, atoms, and electrons don’t have a temperature.
Molecules don’t have internal vibrations that can be construed as temperature? That’s news to me.
Swenson,
Please stop taking the stupid pills.
“Each night, the Earth loses all the heat from the previous day,”
So what you are saying is that the Earth cools to absolute zero each night?
Not quite right is it Nelly?
It’s getting hot in here
so take off all your clothes
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Said the troll.
willard…”The moon-on-the-right has nothing to do here. The question is how can we describe the moon-on-the-left”.
***
The Moon on the left is curvilinear translation. Meets all the requirements:
1)Every point in the body is moving in parallel lines (concentric circles).
2)all points are moving with the same angular velocity. Don’t confuse angular velocity, the velocity of a rotation radial line, and the instantaneous velocity of each point. A uniform rigid body is defined by the motion of its COG, and that COG moves at the same angular velocity of a radial line connected to Earth’s centre.
That’s not good enough, Gordo.
You need to show that your interpretation is the only one.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
“Thats not good enough, Gordo.”?
Realty? And anybody who does not suffer from a severe mental defect should value your opinion because . . . ?
Why don’t you go away and stroke Ken Rice’s ego (or anything else you fancy)?
That should put a smile on everyone’s face.
Mike Flynn,
Manufacturing Fright,
Gordo is conflating possibility with necessity.
If he wants to claim that something is necessary, he has to show that it applies all the time, not just some times.
I don’t make the rules.
Sorry not sorry.
Woeful Wee Willy,
He doesn’t have to show anything – particularly to an idiot like you.
He may do as he wishes – his rules apply to him.
You are right about one thing – you don’t make the rules. You just make yourself look as idiotic as you are.
“curvilinear translation”
What is that?
“Every point in the body is moving in parallel lines” Straight lines that point to a fixed star. According to Newton and others.
An orbit describes the movements of the COG, not the individual point that make it up.
Gordon,
“The Moon on the left is curvilinear translation. Meets all the requirements:”
Well, almost.
It is missing one, the one requirement for curvilinear translation that is missing is that the Moon must maintain a fixed orientation.
It doesn’t do that.
Gordon,
Your description gets libration wrong. The moon does NOT move like a train car on an elliptical track. The “front” of the moon does not point “forward” along the direction of travel.
Your description works well enough for a perfectly circular orbit, but fails more and more badly as the orbit becomes more and more elliptical.
Folkerts, you’ve been deceived if you believe “The ‘front’ of the moon does not point ‘forward’ along the direction of travel.
Clint, you have been deceived if you think that the exact point facing forward along the orbit is exactly constant. Similarly the point facing exactly toward the earth is not constant. The moon ‘wobbles’ in ways that balls on strings and cars on rails can’t explain.
The “wobble” is not actual. It is due to “libration”, which is only an illusion, as viewed from Earth, due to Moon’s orbit.
You can’t understand any of this, and you can’t learn. Braindead is a common ailment here.
Clint R being wrong is a constant however.
Specifically, the exact point on the moon that is facing directly forward as the moon is closest to the earth will tilt slightly outward as the moon orbits and get farther away.
That point will again be directly forward when the moon is farthest away, tilting inward as the moon move back closer to the earth in its orbit.
This is easy to explain with a correct understanding of the moon’s orbit. It is impossible to explain correctly for a cart fixed to a rail or a ball fixed to a string (or a ball fixed to a rod, or any of the other similar models).
That’s wrong, TF.
You’re creating torque on Moon, magically!
That ain’t science.
Clint R,
The Moon puts a torque on the Earth, and the Earth puts a torque on the Moon.
It’s called science, that subject you don’t understand.
It’s not majic, it’s science.
It’s amazing how braindead you are bob.
Yeah, you are easily amazed, no?
It’s not amazing that Clint R is wrong. He is all the time.
It is fascinating how Clint can be so sure and so wrong.
How everyone else (including all the textbook and professors) missed an idea that he alone has figured out (without any calculations, no less).
Tim, it is humorous how Clint can be so sure and so wrong for so long.
Folkerts, did you have any science to go with your ramblings?
Clint, you should stick to your writing about imaginary objects. It will be easier (and way more humorous) for you rather than trying to understand real object science from Tim.
Two braindead idiots, bob and RLH, jump in to try to save Folkerts.
As usual, it didn’t work….
Still wrong aren’t you?
Dear CLint R,
You could try and learn some physics from Tim, he is actually qualified to teach physics.
Quite unlike you, isn’t that correct?
Try hitting yourself in the head with a torque wrench.
It won’t teach you about torque, but it won’t hurt, or will it?
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Said the troll.
” … or obfuscation about rotation wrt stars. ”
The only obfuscation here is that some ignoramuses are trying to misrepresent the concept of “rotation with respect to a star” as if it were affecting the rotation in some mechanical sense (by accelerating it, or even by creating a rotation where if fact there is none).
Since years, many commenters try to explain them that this concept is used since centuries (probably even millennia), in order to compute the rotation period of an observed celestial body independently of the motion of the celestial body on which the observer stays.
Newton, Mayer and many many others have perfectly used and explained this concept.
But the ignoramuses do not want to admit it – or they pretend they don’t want to.
Sometimes namely I think that in fact, they perfectly know that the Moon very well rotates around its polar axis, and they just keep teasing and fooling and kidding us all the time.
Moon does not rotate about its axis. It is only orbiting. It’s the same basic motion as a ball-on-a-string. One side always faces the inside of the orbit.
If you had ever studied physics, you should be able to do a simple vector diagram. But, you can’t, and you can’t learn.
Orbiting without rotating means one face always pointing to a fixed star. An orbit and gravity works on the COG of the objects concerned, not the individual distributed atoms that make them up.
If you understood orbital motion, you would know that is wrong.
If you understood physics, a vector diagram would prove that is wrong.
But, you’re uneducated and can’t learn.
“If you understood physics …”
Can you not see the irony? Literally everyone who ‘understands physics’ (professors, textbooks, NASA engineers, …) concludes the moon is rotating once per month.
Do you truly believe that you and you alone — who took maybe one undergrad physics class — understands physics better then everyone else in history combined?
Yes TF, it’s called “reality”. Mount Everest is NOT rotating about its axis. The MGR wooden horse is NOT rotating. The ball-on-a-string is NOT rotating. Moon is NOT rotating.
You should try some reality. But, you reject reality. You’re just another braindead cult idiot.
Again. You call physics a “cult” while imploring people to learn physics. You can’t have it both ways! The irony is blatant.
Heck, you can’t even define “rotation”!
I did NOT call physics a cult, braindead TF. And, “rotation” has been defined for you many times. You can’t understand.
If you learned to face reality, you wouldn’t have to lie.
Like I said, you can’t define rotation. In the time it took to reply with nothing, you could have actually provided a definition
Here’s mine. (and gould google many sources to confirm this).
Rotation about an axis:
Define an axis, ie a line.
A point is rotating about that axis if the point:
a) maintains a constant distance from that axis, and
b) changes its angular position, as measured relative to an inertial reference frame (ie relative to the ‘fixed stars’).
If you have anything you want to propose, go for it.
Sorry Folkerts, until you can face reality, you’re an idiot. I don’t attempt to teach physics to idiots, or argue semantics.
In your world of make-believe, everything is rotating about its axis. That ain’t reality.
In all the time you’ve wasted perverting physics, you could have actually tried to learn some.
“until you can face reality…”
So enlighten us. What does “rotation” mean “in reality”? How could we “really” determine if something is rotating about any given axis? What specifically would we measure?
“Specifically”, in the case of the ball-on-a-string, if the ball is rotating about its axis the string wraps around it.
In the case of Moon, if it were rotating, we would see all sides of it from Earth.
You’ve now been “enlightened”. Try to spin your way out of that reality.
“In the case of Moon, if it were rotating, we would see all sides of it from Earth.”
So rotation is defined by how much of the moon we see. Interesting choice. If the moon rotates 360 degrees during an orbit, every part of the lunar equator would face the earth. if the moon were not rotating at all, then exactly one point on the lunar equator would face earth.
But we see a little more than 1 hemisphere. A small range of points on the equator face the earth (ie libration). So *by your definition* the moon actually is rotating back and forth slightly during each orbit.
Do you want to re-think that “definition”?
Nice try Folkerts, but you failed again to pervert reality.
Your first paragraph is only true if Moon’s orbit is a perfect circle. That’s your strawman.
In your second paragraph, you tear down your strawman, by considering Moon’s actual orbit.
Your knowledge of physics is pathetic, and your attempts to pervert reality are even worse.
You’re a braindead cult idiot, Folkerts.
Please feel free to offer more such examples.
Clint blames me for his own poor definition. Then backtracks and adds special cases for circular vs elliptical orbits. He would be in real trouble with three-body problems where the orbits can be much more complicated — even chaotic.
“Reality” is that the stars move across the moon’s sky at a constant rate. In other words the moon rotates at a constant angular velocity about *some* axis. It is a ‘perversion of reality’ to say the moon is ‘rotating’ about an axis through the earth-moon barycenter, since it moves with varying distances and varying rates around that axis.
Folkerts offers more examples of his braindead cult behavior. He has now started the desperate rambling phase — throwing out anything he can conjure up. All he knows is he’s losing, but he can’t stop himself.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Are you truly confused by ” … the stars move across the moon’s sky at a constant rate “?
Can you not agree that this means the moon is rotating about some axis at a constant rate?
See why you’re a braindead cult idiot, Folkerts?
You still don’t know the difference between “orbiting” (revolving) and “rotating”. A ball-on-a-string would also “see the stars move across the sky”! You can’t even understand that simple analogy.
You’re not making ANY progress. You’re braindead. Thanks for another example.
> You still don’t know the difference between “orbiting” (revolving) and “rotating”.
The Moon Dragon Crank Master Argument defines an orbit as a rotation, Pup:
(REVOLUTION!) Revolution can be defined as (or *is*) a rotation about an external axis. Orbit and revolution are synonyms.
Do keep up.
…and there is a difference between “revolving” (rotating about an external axis) and “rotating” (rotating about an internal axis), which is the point being made. People are confusing objects that are only “revolving” (rotating about only an external axis) for objects that are “revolving and rotating” (rotating about both an external and an internal axis).
DREMT is confusing things that are rigidly connected with ones that are connected by gravity.
Incorrect.
So what are differences between things that are rigidly connected with ones that are connected by gravity?
You tell me, for a change.
> and there is a difference between revolving (rotating about an external axis) and rotating (rotating about an internal axis), which is the point being made.
You need to coordinate more tightly with Pup, Kiddo, for he just caught mishandling your wordology.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-867367
Lunar rocks demonstrate a wider range of intellect.
That underestimates lunar rocks.
Except dear Clint R,
You have never studied physics and can’t do a vector diagram.
That’s why you keep getting the wrong answer.
bob, Norma already uses the “you’ve never studied physics” schtick to hide his ignorance. You need to come up with something original.
Originality is hard when you’re braindead, huh?
I believe I did it before Norman, but that’s just a belief, it may or may not be true.
Though what is true is that you can’t do a vector diagram for the Moon correctly.
Can You Punk?
You still think momentum is a force?
Sorry braindead bob, but Norma already used the momentum/force nonsense too. That’s where he had to back down because of the “hammer/hand experiment”.
Next….
Clint R,
so you admit you were beaten then, and you are beaten now.
I think you hit yourself on the head with your hammer.
And I was only asking if you still think momentum is a force, I wasn’t making an argument there.
But then you have a problem telling the difference.
Sorry braindead, but I wasn’t “beaten” there.
Possibly your illusions are due to your being braindead.
Clint R,
You have lost every argument you have participated in.
What do you want, your participation trophy?
What’s your address?
As you want to be the judge, I would only be concerned if you ever agreed with me.
How can anyone agree with someone who is always wrong?
Clint R,
Let’s try and agree on something.
Tennessee, Scotland, Canada, or Kentucky?
Throw Japan into the mix?
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
Said the troll.
DR EMPTY,
Whiskey or Whisky?
#2
bobdroege, please stop trolling.
1. Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.earth
So = 1.361 W/m (So is the Solar constant)
S (W/m) is the planet’s solar flux. For Earth S = So
Earths albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earths surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earths axial spin
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earths surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150*1*1)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )∕ ⁴ = 287,74 K
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
Conclusions:
The planet mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet….Tmean.Tsat.mean
Mercury…..325,83 K..340 K
Earth….287,74 K..288 K
Moon…223,35 Κ..220 Κ
Mars..213,21 K..210 K
Te.correct vs Tsat.mean comparison table
Planet……..Te……..Te.correct…….Tmean.Tsat.mean
Mercury….439,6 K.364 K……….325,83 K..340 K
Earth…255 K……210 K………..287,74 K..288 K
Moon..270,4 Κ….224 K……….223,35 Κ..220 Κ
Mars..209,91 K.174 K……….213,21 K..210 K
The 288 K 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earths atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earths surface.
There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Is Tmean Taverage or (Tmin+Tmax)/2?
Tmean is the planet average surface temperature.
Tmean 288K is the planet average surface temperature measured by thermometer.
Tmean 255K is the planet emission brightness temperature measured by radiometer.
Christos, pls pay attention to the amount of temperature difference between the two measurements.
Isn’t Tsat 288K according to NASA?
No Stephen, Tsat used around here for anomaly in top post is per Dr. Spencer:
“Contrary to some reports, the satellite measurements are not calibrated in any way with the global surface-based thermometer records of temperature.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
You’re not making much of an argument.
The “255K” is for an imaginary object.
It has no connection to reality.
The planet Earth is not an imaginary object.
>The planet Earth is not an imaginary object.
Are you working for Vournas now?
That the Earth is not an imaginary object was for Clint R, the blog laughing stock. Maybe Stephen wants to join Clint R in that community.
Vournas writes the Earth atm. is an imaginary object by using 0.47 fudge factor instead of the optical properties of the real atm.
Ball4 is getting frustrated because his nonsense isn’t working.
He got caught trying to use the imaginary object. Reality messed him up, again.
I never used an imaginary object measurement, that was Clint R’s mistake. Black body radiation really does exist and has been measured!
Ball4 used a calculated value from an imaginary object, and is now in full “cover-up” mode.
They get caught and they have to weasel out of their own web.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Data “measured by radiometer.” is not a calculated value Clint. The blog laughing stock Clint R comments remain, as always, entertainment only.
Clint really means that’s why Clint’s trolling is so much fun. Fortunately the entertainment provided by Clint R is commercial free so there is no cost.
Now Ball4 is claiming the “255K” is “measured by radiometer”. He just digs his hole deeper and deeper. There is no such measurement for Earth’s average surface temperature.
When one of the braindead cult idiots gets so trapped, others often jump in to save him. Who will it be? Norma, Willard, Folkerts, or the junior assistant janitor, E. Swanson?
Who can save Ball4?
Clint,
When a lie becomes a legend, report the legend.
There are these radiometers in space, operated by little green men. Ball4 could be one of these little green men.
“There is no such (255K) measurement for Earth’s average surface temperature.”
Well the entertainer at least knows some physical truth; actually as I wrote Tmean 255K is the planet emission brightness temperature measured by radiometer.
The modern gibberish trolling of Clint R is free entertainment measured by laugh meter.
Ball4, provide your “measured by radiometer” values for Earth’s brightness temperature.
Then explain how that nonsense means anything to the reality of Earth’s average surface temperature of 288K.
Apparently Clint R would like a little more detail, good for Clint:
Tmean 288K is the value observed for planet average surface temperature measured by thermometer.
Tmean 255K is the value observed for planet emission brightness temperature measured by radiometer data at:
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/data/
To explain to Clint R, pls pay attention to the amount of temperature difference between the two measurements.
Ball4, we know you idiots can provide links you can’t understand. But, you need to clearly show where your “255K” is measured, and how.
A “brightness temperature” refers to a calculated value from an imaginary object.
You need to deal with reality, and that ain’t happening.
The “brightness temperature” 32F refers to a value measured observing a real glass of ice water.
Similarly, the “brightness temperature” 255K refers to a value measured observing a real planet.
It is only Clint R humorously writing about imaginary objects.
B,
You wrote –
“The “brightness temperature” 32F refers to a value measured observing a real glass of ice water.
Similarly, the “brightness temperature” 255K refers to a value measured observing a real planet.”
From Wikipedia –
“The brightness temperature is not a temperature as ordinarily understood. It characterizes radiation, and depending on the mechanism of radiation can differ considerably from the physical temperature of a radiating body (though it is theoretically possible to construct a device which will heat up by a source of radiation with some brightness temperature to the actual temperature equal to brightness temperature).”
On the other hand, RSS use –
“The brightness temperature is a measurement of the radiance of the microwave radiation traveling upward from the top of the atmosphere to the satellite, expressed in units of the temperature of an equivalent black body.”
You don’t seem to use either, and for some climate crackpot reason, prefer to muddy the waters by using both F and Kelvins for the same supposed temperature measurement.
I suppose you might now say that you can utter any nonsensical thing you wish, because GHE supporters are pretty dim, and don’t care about science and fact, but depend on faith and religious fervour. Go your hardest, dummy, and see how many other idiots will spring to your defence!
Now tell me again, what frequency band your radiometer was using, and what “model” it was calibrated against, a la RSS. You really have no clue, do you, just trying to sound sciency.
Just another idiot of the climate crackpot variety!
The “brightness temperature” readout 32F refers to a value measured observing a real glass of ice water which equals the thermometer temperature reading in the glass of ice water at the same time. Obviously that is a surprise to Swenson.
Swenson is working hard becoming the new blog chief laughing stock overtaking even Clint R. Go for it Swenson, I know you can do it.
I don’t know, but I put DREMPTY and Clint R in a tie for third place for their intelligent photon theory.
Top prize is either the Moons phases are caused by Earth’s shadow or the Earth has cooled since it was in its molten state.
We could have a vote.
I will assume that you mean that Tmean is in fact Tavaerage. That is, (t1+t2+t3…)/n.
Yes, exactly.
Tmean is the total of observations divided by the number of observations-the average surface temperature.
See above. Tmean has 2 different meanings on this site.
The meaning in most statistical and scientific papers is Taverage. In most climate papers it is (Tmin+Tmax)/2.
That’s true if you only have two data points.
But I am told continuously that Tmin and Tmax is all we have for a large number of historical data and some of what is recorded toady.
Then give it its due credence.
I did.
Speaking of predictions, this is how climate debils made their straight line projection predictions 10 years ago.
Do you know anyone like that in here ?
I think his handle is Bindeinstein, or something like that.
https://i.postimg.cc/kXc1yqRN/icecol.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/3wKDFQpG/iceex1.jpg
Eben
” I think his handle is Bindeinstein, or something like that. ”
Only ignorant dumbasses like you post such brainless stuff.
The difference between you and the few ignoramuses who deny Moon’s spin is equal to zero.
Excellent zinger,
you can now return to your never ending flat Moon circular ass debate.
With THIS NOAA forecast
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd1/euT2mSeaInd1.gif
I’m very satisfied (but only because local warming around me, of course)
Ball4 wrote earlier-
“Tmean 255K is the planet emission brightness temperature measured by radiometer.”
Ball4 is off with fairies yet again.
Idiot climate cranks are the only ones who would be stupid enough to claim that the average “temperature” of the Earth can be measured with a “radiometer”,
Ask him where this “radiometer” is situated”. What frequencies does it measure? What is its spacial coverage?
Ball4 is one confused cultist. He doesn’t realise that the 255 K is a nonsense figure, pulled from the depths of the fantasies of people like Carl Sagan and James Hansen – delusional climate nutters who don’t accept that the Earth started off molten, and has cooled to its present temperature.
Climate cultists just assume the Earth has no internal heat, and use bizarre assumptions to calculate that the Sun could only warm the Earth to 255 K. As the Earth is demonstrably hotter, they are baffled, and make the extraordinary claim that the imaginary “difference” is due to CO2!
These dummies didn’t even realise that H2O possesses the GHG properties of CO2, or that the the “heat trapping” properties of both are irrelevant. One way or the other, the atmosphere in total prevents about 35% of insolation from reaching the surface. The climate idiots claim that lowering the energy reaching the surface makes it hotter!
A pack of fools who don’t realise that their stupid assertions lead to the logical conclusion that reducing insolation to its minimum (at night) should cause temperatures to rocket!
Reality rejecting dimwits all. Luckily, they have many mentally afflicted gullible followers – just like Ball4 – who willingly accept any idiotic dribbles which come from the cult leaders’ lips!
Oh well.
Oh Well
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0ag8DkipmQ
bob, Swenson actually hit a new high on my laughometer topping that of even Clint R.
Mike, errrrr… Swenson, please consult with Stephen P Anderson who 5:35 pm claims these radiometers in space are operated by little green men & come up with yet more amusing stories.
It’s a tough call for winner of blog laughing stock banner today. But it is still early. There is plenty of competition yet to be registered.
B,
I guess you can’t find anything to disagree with, then?
That sounds fair. I admire your ability to completely reject reality, and I suppose that it prevents you from doing anything that might result in inflicting serious bodily injury, due to uncaring stupidity.
Carry on dreaming. Still can’t say where the GHE may be observed and measured, can you?
Maybe you need a different radiometer – of the magical climate cult variety!
The GHE has been observed and measured:
Tmean 288K is the value observed for planet average surface temperature measured by thermometer.
Tmean 255K is the value observed for planet emission brightness temperature measured by radiometer data here:
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/data/
To explain to Mike errr… Swenson, pls pay particular attention to the amount of temperature difference between the two measurements.
Ball4, are you trying to compare surface with TOA?
You are THAT braindead?
To explain to Clint R yet again, pls pay particular attention to the amount of temperature difference between the two measurements.
Ball4,
Why do you link to data that supports me?
Are you truly that stupid?
Go on, quote the NASA Ceres measured radiometer data which supports your stupid 255 K “planet emission brightness temperature”!
What an idiot you are!
[laughs at idiot who just makes stuff up hoping nobody will call him on it]
Wow, there’s a temperature difference between the surface and TOA! Is that why jets are heated?
bobdroege is confused.
He wrote –
“It is molecules and atom that are doing the abbosrbing and emitting, or the electrons within those atoms or molecules.”
Which is it bob? The electrons, the atoms, the molecules?
Are you trying to intimate that CO2 has a different “temperature” to anything else?
Or are you just a confused climate crank who has difficulty with clearly communicating in English?
Try learning some physics, before pretending to teach it.
It’s all three dumb bunny, or don’t you know any physics.
Or are you confused like DR EMPTY, and don’t know the difference between or and and?
Your question
“Are you trying to intimate that CO2 has a different temperature to anything else?”
No, I am claiming individual atoms or molecules don’t have a temperature.
Grok that do you dear boy?
b,
Define temperature, you idiot, and then tell me why a molecule cannot have a temperature.
Say, one with a diameter of 10 nanometers? No temperature? Absolute zero?
Now is your time to say you didn’t really mean what you said, but something else. Or just apologise, as you have done in the past.
Learn some physics, laddie. Forget about the 19th century – some advances have been made since then.
By the way, writing “It is molecules and atom that are doing the abbosrbing and emitting . . . ” shows that you are either barely literate, or just as sloppy as your average dimwitted climate cultist.
Carry on being an idiot. You’re doing a good job of it.
Swenson,
Sorry, my bad.
My knowledge of physics is not the problem here.
Find a PhD in physics or Chemistry and ask them, I already have.
Swenson,
This won’t help, but it’s worth a try
“Any single atom or molecule has kinetic energy, but not a temperature. This is an important distinction. Populations of molecules have a temperature related to their average velocity but the concept of temperature is not relevant to individual molecules, they have kinetic energy but not a temperature.”
from https://openbooks.lib.msu.edu/clue/chapter/chapter-5-systems-thinking/
Hint for you Swenson: Get a clue!
“In these situations energy added to a system can not only speed up the movement of molecules but also make them vibrate, bend, and rotate”
bob d…”I am claiming individual atoms or molecules dont have a temperature”.
***
That’s because you don’t understand the relationship between kinetic energy, temperature, and heat. Nor do you understand atomic theory.
If temperature is defined for a gas as the average kinetic energy of a gas, it stands to reason that means a statistical ‘average’, since temperature in this definition is a statistical inference drawn by Boltzmann and Maxwell. That means the sum of the individual KEs divided by the number of KEs. Of course, we mean the KEs of individual gas atoms. Therefore it should be possible to derive the temperature of 1 atom or molecule.
I don’t see it as a useful calculation but averages are averages. I agree with RLH on this. Now, if I could just get him to agree that the Moon does not rotate on a local axis.
The big question, Bob, is why are the atoms/molecules in a gas moving anyway and why do they move faster when heated? Since molecules and atoms are simply a collection of nucleii with +ve protons and electrons with -ve charges, the electron is the only particle able to absorb EM or heat. There has to be a relationship between the internal KE of an atom and the external KE of its motion in a gas.
“if I could just get him to agree that the Moon does not rotate on a local axis.”
That would not be possible as it is the opposite of what is actually happening.
The Moon rotates once on its own axis for every orbit of Earth.
“Therefore it should be possible to derive the temperature of 1 atom or molecule.”
That might sound plausible at first, but it misses a few subtleties.
For instance, consider a lone atom flying through space. What is it’s KE? From its perspective, it is stationary — just floating there. So the KE & “temperature” would be zero. But looking from earth, we would measure a different KE and hence different temperature. An alien on a different planet would measure a different KE & different temperature. Who is right??
The concept of “temperature” only makes sense as an average KE relative to the center of mass of a collection of particles. A chunk of copper is not hotter simply because you put it in a car and start to drive around, giving the atoms more KE!
Gordon,
“There has to be a relationship between the internal KE of an atom and the external KE of its motion in a gas.”
Well no, there doesn’t. Because there isn’t such a thing as the internal kinetic energy of an atom.
But if you found one, I think a trip to Stockholm would be in order.
Gas is composed of molecules, not atoms independently. Unless it is a plasma which has loads of kinetic energy.
RLH,
You forgot about the noble gases, you know Helium, Neon, Argon and the rest.
There are a significant number of gasses that are molecules however.
“A pure gas may be made up of individual atoms (e.g. a noble gas like neon), elemental molecules made from one type of atom (e.g. oxygen), or compound molecules made from a variety of atoms (e.g. carbon dioxide)”
P.S. Nobel gasses are not very good at absorbing energy in radiation form directly.
“The most abundant naturally occurring gas is Nitrogen (N2), which makes up about 78% of air. Oxygen (O2) is the second most abundant gas at about 21%. The inert gas Argon (Ar) is the third most abundant gas at .93%. There are also trace amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2), neon (Ne), helium (He), methane (CH4), krypton (Kr), hydrogen (H2), nitrous oxide (NO), xenon (Xe), ozone (O3), iodine (I2), carbon monoxide (CO), and ammonia (NH3) in the atmosphere.”
Bob, RLH does have a point that polyatomic molecules can have “internal rotational KE” or “internal vibrational KE”.
This still doesn’t give a “temperature” for individual molecules, but it does show that they can have “internal KE”.
Tell that to Roy who uses the vibrations of O2 molecules to remotely measure temperature.
Tim,
I did say atom, not molecule.
I don’t know if that makes a difference for RLH or Gordon.
RLH, the point here is that Roy doesn’t use radiation from one single, isolated molecule to find the temperature. The satellites use radiation from many different molecules that are all interacting with surrounding molecules — all presumably in thermal equilibrium.
** The collection of molecules has a well-defined temperature.
** An individual molecule doesn’t have a well-defined temperature.
Gordon says: ‘There has to be a relationship between the internal KE of an atom and the external KE of its motion in a gas.’
If I understand the question correctly, then yes there is a relationship between the “external KE” (ie the translational KE of the molecule as it flies around in the gas) and the “internal KE” (which would be the rotations and vibrations) of the molecule.
The relationship is that — for a gas in thermal equilibrium — each ‘degree of freedom’ has an average energy of 1/2 kT.
KE has hos three degrees of freedom (x,y,z) so KE = 3/2 kT
Vibrations and rotation have varying degrees of freedom, depending on the complexity of the molecule. Google these terms and you can find much more in-depth info.
Bob,
Can a single molecule have entropy?
Can the vibrations of a single molecule decrease to zero?
Yes, that’s called the ground state.
At temperatures normally encountered in the atmosphere, most molecular vibrations are in the ground state.
So O2 molecules don’t vibrate and cause radiation that can be picked up by satellite to measure their temperature. Good to know.
RLH,
1) Even if ‘most’ vibrational states are in the ground state, there can sill be *some* excited out in the tail of the MB distribution.
2) *Rotational* states have much smaller quantum steps. These rotational states can easily absorb/emit microwave photons for the satellites to detect and use to determine the temperature.
Well yes, since you can’t turn all of the molecules energy into work.
Bob: There are 2 things here. One is the movement of electrons within the various ‘orbits’ around an atom. The other is vibrations of the atoms in a molecule. Both store energy. One is quantized. The other is not.
The third is the gross motions of atoms/molecules in a gas. That too is not quantized.
RLH,
I know that you are wrong
“Bob: There are 2 things here. One is the movement of electrons within the various orbits around an atom. The other is vibrations of the atoms in a molecule. Both store energy. One is quantized. The other is not.”
Electrons don’t orbit the nucleus and both vibrations of the atoms in a molecule and the electrons energy levels in atoms and molecules are quantized.
Don’t try to teach chemistry.
Bob: “The laws of quantum mechanics describe the process by which electrons can move from one allowed orbit, or energy level, to another. As with many processes in the quantum world, this process is impossible to visualize. An electron disappears from the orbit in which it is located and reappears in its new location without ever appearing any place in between. This process is called a quantum leap or quantum jump, and it has no analog in the macroscopic world.”
If they call it an ‘orbit’ I will do likewise.
“The concepts of temperature and thermal equilibrium associated with crystal solids are based on individual atoms in the system possessing vibrational motion.”
If they call if vibration motion then I will do likewise. Are you saying that those vibrational motions are in themselves quantized?
RLH,
“If they call if vibration motion then I will do likewise. Are you saying that those vibrational motions are in themselves quantized?”
Yes, that’s what I just said.
Electrons are like guitar strings, you can model both with the same equations.
And the other quote, they are dumbing it down for you.
It would be more correct to say that the “orbits of electrons” or orbitals are probability density functions that predict the likelihood of finding an electron in a certain location.
Orbits or probability density functions are the same things. One is shorter.
RLH,
“Orbits or probability density functions are the same things. One is shorter.”
Nope, they are not the same thing.
Google Heisenberg
Or dumb things down, you pick.
If a single molecule has entropy then it has temperature.
Temperature is average kinetic energy, so with one as your sample size, no, a single molecule does not have an average kinetic energy.
“If a single molecule has entropy then it has temperature.”
Nope, you are bad at chemistry, but then everyone is.
Even Chemists.
“Nope, they are not the same thing.”
What used to be called one thing is now called another. Neither is an accurate, precise, description of what happens.
“a single molecule does not have an average kinetic energy”
So a molecule of H2O does not have 3 different vibrational modes of storing energy.
RLH,
“So a molecule of H2O does not have 3 different vibrational modes of storing energy.”
Those aren’t modes of storing kinetic energy.
RLH,
“What used to be called one thing is now called another. Neither is an accurate, precise, description of what happens.”
True, but one is better than the other, more modern, more accurate, and a better prediction of what will happen in the atom or molecule.
I’m sure you can’t improve on either description.
“Those arent modes of storing kinetic energy.”
All forms of energy are interchangeable one with another. Kinetic energy can be changed to vibrational and vice versa.
“True, but one is better than the other, more modern, more accurate, and a better prediction of what will happen in the atom or molecule.”
It also uses more words as I said. Neither is an actually accurate description of what really happens.
“One is quantized. The other is not.”
As already pointed out, all of these internal energy modes are quantized: orbital energies, vibrations, and rotations.
Bob,
You need to rewrite the Laws of Thermodynamics. Get your Nobel.
Stephan P Anderson,
Not necessary, the laws of Thermodynamics have already been rewritten for the quantum level, without using the terms heat or temperature.
Nothing I have posted violates the laws of thermodynamics.
a covalently-bound crystal is a single molecule and it sure does have entropy ^-^. An entropy of a single molecule without internal degrees of freedom should be zero i think.
A little space rock being biblical:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/09/21/bronze-age-city-destroyed-by-bolide/
“An airburst-related influx of salt (~ 4 wt.%) produced hypersalinity, inhibited agriculture, and caused a ~ 300–600-year-long abandonment of ~ 120 regional settlements within a > 25-km radius. ”
[But not sure how exactly.]
The former chief scientist at Pfizer discusses COVID vaccinations.
https://www.brighteon.com/0aedd76e-6be9-42c8-ae10-d6913f467ba8
Like Brighteon is a valuable source of information and not lies and disinformation.
He’s full of it.
A lying scumbag.
Stephen
He is correct on the lack of known long term impact of the mrna vaccines.
http://www.uphs.upenn.edu/cep/COVID/mRNA%20vaccine%20review%20final.pdf
Also, his assessment of vulnerability seems correct concerning elderly and with sickness. For deaths with conditions or causes in addition to COVID-19, on average, there were 2.9 additional conditions or causes per death. 94% of deaths mention more than one condition.
Could not see a specific lie, but a lot of opinion and conspiracy was included. Let me know a specific lie and I will check it out.
https://www.c*d*c.gov/nchs/data/health_policy/covid19-comorbidity-expanded-12092020-508.pdf
remove *’s
Likewise
12/6/2020
Things are moving slowly in your world
Brilliant observation. Yes, C*D*C is slow. They had an earlier report with similar percentages. I have not seen an updated one since December, but have downloaded the excess deaths recently, the percentages still seem to hold related to age. I am not sure the excess death data has comorbidity data.
The UK is much faster then having data from this Aug available.
Great, have the percentages changed in UK?
This is the ratio of Covid deaths to all deaths within each age groups and shows a relatively higher ratio in middle age groups and lower in older age groups for the most recent wave.
PercentOfUSWeeklyCovidDeathsByAge.png
Mark B, Good info.
Since this is percentage based, it is hard to visualize the magnitude. The interesting thing is due to the lock-downs/reduced travel, excess deaths with children were lower in 2020. Most likely due to reduced travel/playing with others (accidents). Excess deaths with elderly increased significantly, most likely due to loneliness, deferred health care. So I would expect from a percentage basis, the elderly would go down from total and children to increase.
Excess DEATH USA (sorry for format)
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Under 25 years 4,994 5,066 4,848 4,644 4,674 4,930
25-44 years 8,776 9,450 9,560 9,544 9,668 12,518
45-64 years 37,152 37,844 38,250 37,922 37,992 46,146
65-74 years 32,948 34,228 34,944 36,740 37,362 45,856
75-84 years 37,378 36,982 38,728 40,598 40,924 50,970
85 years and older 39,134 39,122 40,526 41,504 41,264 49,954
“Great, have the percentages changed in UK?”
Every month is different. Some up, some down.
December 2020
We have moved on a little since then.
As the study states/recommends this analysis should have been updated later in 2021 with fresher data. But that still would not provide information for what may happen 5 years from now, a concern that should be a factor for anyone with common sense. 1) Is the unknown long-term impact of the vaccine going to offset the short-term gain? 2) Am I at risk for severe outcome from covid. 3) What are the benefits of natural immunity if not at risk of sever outcome.
My opinion is for those with multiple comorbidity to take J&J or similar, but healthy individuals would be better fighting the infection and gaining natural t-cell immunity. My recommendation would be consult with your own doctor, there is no one size fits all, and some may need the mRNA vaccines.
I think England has the right solution for the young crowd, don’t vaccinate unless you have comorbidity or in fear of infecting a relative with comorbidity. At least not until a long term assessment can be made.
Try
“1.Main points
In August 2021, there were 40,460 deaths registered in England, 3,650 deaths (9.9%) more than the August five-year average (2015 to 2019) and there were 2,614 deaths registered in Wales, 119 deaths (4.8%) more than the August average.
The leading cause of death in August 2021 was dementia and Alzheimer’s disease in England (accounting for 10.9% of all deaths) and ischaemic heart diseases in Wales (12.1% of all deaths).
Coronavirus (COVID-19) was the third leading cause of death in August 2021 in England (accounting for 5.3% of all deaths registered in August); in Wales, COVID-19 was the seventh leading cause of death and accounted for 2.7% of all deaths.
Taking into account the population size and age structure, the age-standardised mortality rate (ASMR) for deaths due to COVID-19 in England (45.7 deaths per 100,000 people) increased significantly for the second consecutive month; the ASMR for deaths due to COVID-19 in Wales was 24.5 deaths per 100,000 people, significantly higher than in July 2021.
The North East of England became the English region with the highest ASMR for deaths due to COVID-19 in August 2021 (72.8 deaths per 100,000 people), replacing the North West in June and July 2021; all English regions except the North West had statistically significant increases between July and August 2021.”
My point is not that those with comorbidity are not at risk. In the USA the latest number I have for children (0-17) is 548 deaths out of about 73 million children. And this includes those with comorbidity. That is a probability of 0.00000751 of death. Don’t have sever outcome, give me a number and I can give you a probability.
https://www.the-hospitalist.org/hospitalist/article/246429/coronavirus-updates/decline-child-covid-may-signal-end-latest-surge
My points are 1) vaccinating those not at risk may cause a significant health problem later on 2) the decision to vaccinate and type of vaccination should be done with your personal doctor.
billybob,
“My points are 1) vaccinating those not at risk may cause a significant health problem later on ”
Who is not at risk?
Everybody is at risk.
Doctor Death says you can pay me now or you can pay me later.
“2) the decision to vaccinate and type of vaccination should be done with your personal doctor.”
Bullshit!
That decision is not made between you and your doctor for all the other vaccines we regularly give our children so they can go to school.
bobdroge
Whos not at risk?
It is all about the probabilities. Risk is with us everyday. The risk to children from covid is 0.00000751 of death in the USA. The risk to those who had Covid to get it again and have a severe outcome is also low. The risk of the vaccine is currently about 0.00003889, (VAERS database) but only for those who are fully vaccinated. There is also the unknown risk of long term impacts of Covid and of the Vaccines.
As far as school vaccination, you forget that not everyone goes to public school and for some, the vaccination requirements are the driving force of that decision. Our kids our fully vaccinated with well studied vaccines. Would you like to be the father that OKs a mRNA vaccine with a probability of death at 0.00003889 (and that excludes the multitude of adverse reaction reported) or face covid death at 0.00000751. It is a hard choice not to be taken lightly.
And the chance of dying from covid is 0.002
Man you are bad at math
I have an update for you Bobdroge
Sources: C*D*C and US Census
Deaths children 0-17 548 out of population of 73.792 Million.
Post vaccination deaths reported in VAERS 7218 out of 212.255 million single dose.
Death probabilities 0.00000743 for children 0.00003401 post vaccination report to VAERS. Please tell me the error in my math.
Typical MSM headline People are 5 times more likely to die after vaccine shot than Children from Covid19.
Of course as Cyrano Jones would say Twice nothing is still nothing.
Billy Bob,
So you data supports my contention that the dude in the video above is a daft lying son of a bitch.
He said only the old people are at risk, your data shows kids are at risk.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
What I remember the video saying is that those with comorbidity are at the highest risk and the young and healthy are relatively lower in risk. But I do not recall his exact words perhaps you can provide a quote.
My understanding is that this person has some baggage as far as credibility. But that does not change the data. I was only assessing to Stephen my take on what he said in the video. There was a lot of opinion and conspiracy, but I did not see any of the facts in error. The trick in looking at material is trying to isolate the crap and focus on what is worth while. After all we are here to learn.
Bottom line, there is a higher risk of death after a vaccine shot than a child dying from Covid19. There are no long term studies on these covid19 vaccines. Natural immunity is superior to vaccination if and this is a big if, you don’t die from the disease. And smart people weigh all the risks.
“There are no long term studies on these covid19 vaccines.”
There are no long term studies on not taking the vaccine either. But the available evidence is that taking it is better than not taking it overall.
The evidence exists for some high risk groups but not for all. England came to that conclusion concerning the young. But it also applies to a healthy 70 year old. They can get and beat this with superior results. My own brother and his wife got it pre-vaccine and he is 70 and overweight. Both no worse than a flu and no lasting effects. 95% of the severely effected average over 2 morbidity. We also have evidence of over subscribing antibiotics and the resulting development of super-bugs. We also have evidence of the superior immunity development through natural means. Vaccinating low risk individuals only creates a favorable environment for more variants and more asymptomatic cases.
Not focusing on the high risk has resulting in everyone being at risk.
I imagine that the chance of getting pregnant is also equal among men. Boy you are bad at statistics.
So men have the same long term effects of getting pregnant as people vaccinated against covid have for long term deleterious effects.
I mean like both are so far none.
Don’t let lgbtq hear that Bobdroege, they will think your thinking is neanderthal based. Some women self identify as men and can get pregnant. But you did not see my real point did you?
You know you are either part Neanderthal or Sub-Saharan African, right?
There are also the long term effects of surviving a covid infection that we know little about.
I know most have evolved, but there may be exceptions.
I know we known more on long-covid then the long term impact of the current covid vaccines. About 9 months more.
Yes, he is correct, there are no known long term effects of any mrna vaccines.
They have been studied for years.
All known effects occur within eight weeks.
Furthermore, the mrna in the vaccine breaks down in about a week, after that, it has done what it needs to do.
And now kids are dying, so he’s lying some more.
Yes, the mRNA breaks down quickly giving it the perception that any long-term impact would be minimized. What is unknown and not study is the long-term impact of these specific vaccines and after the message (the m in mRNA) is delivered to the body, how that may impact future responses from our body. Simply has not been done. Even now, Israel with the most aggressive vaccination program and highest vaccination rate is seeing a surge of new cases. J&J just recently released info on is ongoing efficacy especially after a second shot and it look better for a long term solution. The mRNA seem like a better choice if you want to have reoccurring profit for ongoing boosters. For us capitalist, maybe we should be pushing the mRNA’s.
Another thought since you seem interested in mRNA. Sorrento Therapeutics has a recent study on skin injecable version at 1/10 the strength of a regular shot. If may be the best of both worlds. But again, no long term data is available.
Billy Bob
It is not just about the number of deaths. The Hospitals fill up. This puts a huge burden on healthcare workers (burnout and stress watching so many die). It also reduces the ability of Hospitals to care for other people that need services if Covid patients fill the ranks.
https://tinyurl.com/562uuvyj
From the graphs you can see that the vaccinated older group cut the rate of hospitalization considerably than earlier in the Pandemic.
Billy Bob
It would appear the vaccine has a remarkable affect on numbers of hospitalized. If you weigh the risks the benefit seems to be take a vaccine. There are lots of Conspiracy blogs that make up lots of negative information. Mike Adams (of Natural News) was on a video claiming (with zero evidence, just making declarative statements as if that made them true) that hundreds of thousands had died from Vaccines and the bodies were being liquidated and poured out on fields. I know several people that are vaccinated including myself and have neither heard nor seen one of the terrible side effects Conspiracy blogs mention.
https://tinyurl.com/2a4du8y2
Don’t really have time to visit conspiracy sites, I will just take your word. I got my data from VAERS, like your experience, this is anecdotal and only lists adverse reactions and deaths after taking a vaccine (all). You have to filter it for Covid19 related shots. There is no specific test on if the adverse reactions/deaths are from the vaccine or other underlying condition. However, the database does provide comments from the attending doctor or relative. After reading many of these you can infer a high probability that the vaccine is at fault.
The issue I have with some of the discussion of Covid19 and Vaccines is the averaging of risk on the entire population. England did it correctly when they analyzed the risk/benefits specifically to our children and concluded that only the at risk should take the vaccine. Even if VAERS is half true that the vaccine is at fault, the probability of hospitalization and/or death from the vaccine would still be higher than hospitalization/death from Covid19 for a child. If you were to take the roll of a policy analyst, what would you recommend to lower hospitalization (assuming that was you goal.
One final observation, according to C*D*C, over 90% of all hospitalizations related to covid19 had an underlying condition. Given that natural immunity is generally agreed superior to vaccines, vaccinating low risk individuals only results in prolonging this pandemic.
In my opinion public policy should focus on maximizing quality of life, both near term and long. The risk is extremely high for the elderly and those with comorbidity. A focused policy on educating and providing resources to these individuals would provide much more bang for the buck then sending the Covid19 positive individuals to elderly care facilities or using up vaccine stocks on low risk individuals.
I have a travel day today and will not be responding to any reply in the near future. But I would be interested in your thoughts.
“After reading many of these you can infer a high probability that the vaccine is at fault.”
All/most people are allergic to something.
Does not mean that all, or even most, people will be allergic to the vaccine.
Agreed. I found instances of suicide and other descriptions that seemed more coincidental then a reaction. Almost 25% looked that way. For my purposes I assumed 50%. Do you have a better number and good rationale for it?
So, what kids are dying?
I see you meant “so what, kids are dying”
Though the state I live in is not representative of the whole planet but…
https://apnews.com/article/health-coronavirus-pandemic-st-louis-missouri-c2314a4361d595d805e5df1fa1ca57ef
Bob,
Six kids? You’re hyperventilating because six kids have died in Missouri from COVID? How many abortions have been performed in Missouri this year? Are you hyperventilating over them?
How many of those kids were treated with the myriad of cures out there unavailable to many because of you psychopathic leftists?
Is it funny how vaccines were quickly ushered through and prematurely approved by the FDA? Still, no therapies could be studied and quickly ushered through except expensive therapies like Remdesivir or Regeneron? Isn’t it psychopathic how the government is withholding Regeneron to advance an agenda? Stop your GD virtue signaling, you leftist!
Jeez, if there were myriads of cures, we wouldn’t have 600 thousand some deaths.
And I am not some psychopathic leftist that tells women what to do with their own bodies.
That’s for you assholes on the right, I mean wrong.
>Jeez, if there were myriads of cures, we wouldnt have 600 thousand some deaths.
Dumb. Dumber than dumb. Head in the sand, dumb.
Same to you,
Vaccination is cheaper than any of the myriad of dangerous, ineffective and dumb “cures” you are promoting.
They’re not ineffective or expensive. You compound dumb.
It seemed there was an actual risk in the beginning- as it was unknown and probably if started from any other country there would been less unknowns.
Or a good policy would be to block all air travel from China if there is a similar risk in the future, And if we had block air travel a month earlier, it would been a nothing burger.
I wholly blame China and WHO for all this mess.
I don’t have much blame for Pelosi and distracting everyone- as she just one uneducated idiot.
The cult is in full meltdown again this week. Ball4 didn’t realize where his “255K” came from. Folkerts still can’t understand libration. Norma is back to full time personal attacks, and braindead bob and RLH fall all over themselves trying to pervert reality.
What they need is some more good news — nature is the major “polluter”!
https://scitechdaily.com/deadwood-releasing-10-9-gigatons-of-carbon-every-year-more-than-all-fossil-fuel-emissions-combined/
Clint R is however always wrong. Nothing new there.
Clint R calls something we have all known for years “news”
I was reading some psychology.
They measure people’s personalities on five scales, colloquially:
Curiosity
Friendliness
Conscientiousness
Outgoingness
Nervousness
Now now would the contributors here score?
The scientists would score highest on curiosity.
The engineers would hopefully score highest on conscientiousness.
Would the denialist score highest on nervousness?
I was reading some psychology.
They measure people’s personalities on five scales, colloquially:
Curiosity
Friendliness
Conscientiousness
Outgoingness
Nervousness
Now how would the contributors here score?
The scientists would score highest on curiosity.
The engineers would hopefully score highest on conscientiousness.
Would the denialist score highest on nervousness?
Try this:
https://openpsychometrics.org/tests/IPIP-BFFM/
“The test consists of fifty items that you must rate on how true they are about you on a five point scale where 1=Disagree, 3=Neutral and 5=Agree. ”
What about, ‘Don’t know the answer’?
Neutral, dummy.
But that implies you have an answer when in fact you don’t. Can lead to all sorts of errors in analysis.
Once again you’re confusing usage and mention, dummy.
Neutral means you neither agree or disagree with the statement. If you refuse to answer a question, you stop playing the game.
Researchers who record refusals from smart asses like you don’t need to compile null values for every entry left without answer.
“Neutral means you neither agree or disagree with the statement.”
If I never fill in the form, mm I neutral to all the questions then?
The actual answer is that my responses are Unknown, not known with a particular value. Idiot.
> If I never filled a form
You just did, dummy.
Most of these tests have ways to check if you’re trying to game them.
“You just did”
I did not. You can make things up all you like. Does not make them true however.
To write a comment at Roy’s you need to fill a form, dummy.
What has comment at Roy’s to do with a survey? Other than in your deluded mind that is.
You can wriggle and wriggle all you like. Unknown is still Unknown as is its value and it cannot be compared to another Unknown.
So now you’re playing dumb. That’s just great.
What makes you think that one true statement can be compared to another, dummy?
“So now youre playing dumb”
You were the one who turned a survey into a post to a blog. Idiot.
An Unknown is still Unknown as is its value and it cannot be compared to any other Unknown.
Of course it can, dummy:
http://grobv.unileon.es/robles-rm-semantics-goedel-manuscript.pdf
You really have no idea what you’re talking about.
Only you knows the value of an Unknown.
Gdel’s 3-valued logic is not ‘true, false, unknown’.
‘true, false, unknown’ is the basis for all other logics, acknowledged or not.
There are whole sets of things that no-one can every know which are the basis for the Unknowns. As well as things that have never been evaluated or the indeterminates when evaluated as well.
These are all things that need to be classified in any well founded logic which ‘true, false, unknown’ provides for.
“The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e., an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of natural numbers. For any such consistent formal system, there will always be statements about natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that the system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.”
Incompleteness theorem is incompetent as it does not acknowledge that there are things that can never be classified or even known.
What is the taste of the color Blue?
Incompleteness applies to Boolean logics too, dummy:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-859300
There is no need for a U to represent it!
“Incompleteness applies to Boolean logics too”
Incompleteness doesn’t deal with the Unknown. It is not even mentioned.
> Incompleteness doesn’t deal with the Unknown.
An incomplete logic can generate statements for which we can’t determine if they are true or false.
And you just said that “true, false, unknown” is the basis for all other logics, acknowledged or not.
You should make up your mind.
“you just said that true, false, unknown is the basis for all other logics, acknowledged or not”
I did and it is.
There are things we don’t know. How do you classify them if not as Unknown?
Simple, dummy. You don’t. There is no absolutely universal parser.
The project of classifying everything with logic is dead. Logicizing maths alone is still fraught with problems:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logicism/#SumProForLog
It appears I was too agreeable and not crazy enough.
So you say.
Ent, is having to re-submit because you made a mistake due to “nervousness”?
No. Is the delay between submitting the comment and it appearing on site, which makes you think it has been rejected.
As an IT nerd, perhaps you could offer to do some site maintainance. Noah probably had better IT on the Ark!
I don’t have much trouble.
Relevance and reality seem to work with no problems….
Relevance and reality are not what you offer. Denial is more your suit.
The planet average surface temperature old blackbody equation
angech | September 14, 2021 at 9:23 pm | Reply
“…I think the overall maths comes down on the side that it does affect the average temperature of a planet..
The faster a planet rotates the closer it approximates an ideal black body and hence the closer it approaches to the ideal average emitting temperature of the SB law.
Note; any rotation energy is separate to and does not add any new energy to the incoming and out going energy which remains the same.
The planet cannot get any hotter due to the rotation, it merely approaches the ideal average temperature which it cannot go above.”
The planet old blackbody Te equation.
The planet old blackbody equation was the first attempt to theoretically estimate the planetary average surface temperatures.
Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
The equation calculates planet uniform surface temperature, which is called planet surface effective temperature (Te). It is actually not an average surface temperature, but it was accepted like, for the sake of the simplicity of approximation.
The equation used the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law, thus assuming planet surface as a blackbody surface with uniform surface temperature.
It was an approximation using the average year measured solar flux’ intensity on the planet lessened by the measured average planetary Albedo.
A very rough approximation, but an approximation based on measured data.
The planet old blackbody equation was the first attempt to theoretically calculate the planet average surface temperatures.
The blackbody surface estimations of planetary average surface temperatures were far from being precisely theoretically calculated planet average surface temperatures, which is obvious when comparing the theoretically calculated temperatures with the actually measured planet average surface temperatures.
The planet old blackbody Te equation should be credited for establishing the scientific consensus that planet average surface temperature can be theoretically calculated by the use of the known Stefan-Boltzmann emission law and the measured solar flux and planetary Albedo.
It was the first step in the right direction! But it was not complete.
For forty years the equation became widely used and the planet surface effective temperature (Te) became a synonymous of the planet average surface temperature (Tmean).
In the scientific papers Te is referred to as the planet average surface temperature, which leads to a great confusion…
First we should learn to calculate the Te correctly.
We should use the Φ(1 – a) coupled term when calculating the planetary radiative energy in
Φ(1 – a)S*πr ²
The Te correct is as follows
Te.correct = [ Φ(1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
When calculating the planets’ Te correctly we would be able to see that there are planets with Te>Tmean and there are planets with Te<Tmean.
And this is a very important observation-discovery!
It is a confirmation planets cannot be considered as blackbodies celestial objects.
Blackbody surface has constant uniform temperature which is originated from the inner accumulated or inner produced energy.
Planet surface does not have a constant and a uniform temperature. And planet does not emit IR EM energy of its own!
What planet surface does is to interact with the incident solar flux.
Planet surface the instant on every infinitesimal spot temperature depends on the surface’s interaction with the incoming solar flux. So it depends on the intensity of the solar flux, on the angular of solar irradiance incidence, on angular velocity and on the surface’s thermal properties (atomic density). Also those factors are lessened by the coupled Φ(1 – a) term.
There is the observed Planet Surface Rotational Warming phenomenon. It states that “planet mean surface temperatures (everything else equals) relate as their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth root”.
So yes, the faster a planet rotates – the higher is the average (mean) surface temperature.
Planets are not blackbodies.
We have a New equation formulated for planet mean surface temperature theoretical calculation:
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
And this equation produces remarkably precise results for planets mean surface temperatures very much close to the measured by satellites!
When planet (N*cp) term is high enough, the planet mean surface temperature gets higher than the corrected effective temperature calculated by the corrected Te equation
Te.correct = [ Φ(1-a) S /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
because there is not a theoretical limit of Te being the highest possible for a planet average (mean) surface temperature (the uniform temperature).
And it is an observed fact confirmed by planet mean surface temperatures satellite measurements.
Planet surface is not a blackbody surface.
And Planet never has uniform surface temperature no matter how fast it rotates, because planets always are irradiated from one side and so it is impossible for a planet to achieve a uniform surface temperature.
In short, planet surface is not a blackbody surface.
The Greenhouse Theory actually “sees” planet surface as having an “internal uniform” source of energy of 240 W/m².
Planet is not having an internal source of energy, like the blackbody surface has. The energy planet emits IR EM is a result of planet surface interaction with the incident solar flux.
This kind of energy exchange with outer space cannot be described by the classical Stefan-Boltzmann emission law equation.
Te.correct vs Tsat.mean comparison table
Planet….Te….Te.correct..Tmean….Tsat.mean
Mercury..439,6 K…364 K…..325,83 K…340 K
Earth…..255 K….210 K…..287,74 K…288 K
Moon….270,4 Κ….224 K…..223,35 Κ…220 Κ
Mars…209,91 K….174 K…..213,21 K…210 K
The planet surface for theoretical purpose being divided into tiny infinitesimal blackbody spots with instantly constant temperatures doesn’t make planet surface a blackbody surface as a whole.
Not to mention that planet surface has thermal properties (specific heat), planet surface consists from matter (atoms and molecules) and which properties the perfect blackbody surface has not.
Here is a list of planets and moons and their Φ-factor values:
Planet
or moon…Φ…..Te..Te.correct.Tmean.Tsat.mean
……………..K……K………K…….K
Mercury..0,47..439,6….364….325,83…..340
Venus…..1
Earth….0,47..255……210….287,74…..288
Moon…..0,47..270,4….224….223,35…..220
Mars…..0,47..209,91…174….213,21…..210
Jupiter…1
Io……..1…..95,16….95,16..111,55….110
Europa…0,47…95,16….78,83…99,56….102
Ganymede.0,47..107,08….88,59..107,14….110
Calisto…1….114,66…114,66..131,52..134±11
Saturn….1
Enceladus.1….55,97…..55,97…75,06…..75
Tethys….1….66,55…..66,55…87,48…86±1
Titan…..1….84,52…..84,52…93,10…93,7
Uranus….1
Neptune…1
Triton…0,47(?)..35,4…29,29…33,92…38
2) Triton.1(?)….35,4…35,4….40,97…38
Pluto…..1…….37…..37……41,6….44
Charon….1……41,90…41,90…51,04…53
Conclusion:
An irradiated body cannot be considered as a classical blackbody in principle.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Planets are not classical black bodies, they are grey bodies.
The difference between ideal black bodies and real objects is accounted for by the emissivity “e”in the SB equation.
Emissivity doesn’t account for it very well.
Please explain.
Read Vournas’ myriad explanations on this blog and on his web page.
Even better:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-190710
Wee Willy DumDum,
The Earth is an irregular oblate spheroid dummy. It is actually surrounded by an atmosphere, with ever changing optical properties. The surface itself, is constantly changing, as are the optical properties of the water which overlies most of the surface. Your “equation” is as useful as a hand brake on a canoe!
Get over it, dummy. The Earth has cooled to its present temperature – very little molten surface to be found.
Accept reality. Gavin Schmidt is not a climate scientist, he’s a civil servant who happens to to have a PhD in Mathematics. Michael Mann is a fraud, faker, scofflaw and deadbeat, who didn’t win a Nobel Prize.
Have you found out where the GHE may be observed and measured, dummy?
[derisive sniggers]
Mike Flynn,
Monotonous Flatulence,
I know you love Doritos.
This isn’t about Doritos.
We’ll tell you when it’ll be about Doritos.
Cheers!
Woebegone Wee Willy,
When faced with reality, delusional climate crackpots retreat into unintelligible fantasies.
Need anyone say more?
Mike Flynn,
Meditative Fibrillation,
The Doritos represents your pet topic.
The current exchange isn’t about your pet topic.
Go butt in another exchange!
‘An irradiated body cannot be considered as a classical blackbody in principle.’
Observations support the theory. Go pound sand.
With or without Christos’ fudge factor, Kennui?
Don’t miss this solar update
https://bit.ly/3nZsZqu
ball4…”Tmean 255K is the planet emission brightness temperature measured by radiometer”.
***
It was pointed out to you by Swenson, that no radiometer exists with a sufficiently wide bandwidth to measure the colour temperature of the Earth. And, colour temperature is not an actual temperature measurement but a quasi-temperature derived from actual light colour frequencies equivalents to colours given off by a body heated till it glows a colour.
Hopefully you know that IR does not give off a colour.
No radiometer measures temperature directly. They take in EM frequencies and convert them to an equivalent temperature determined in a lab and programmed into their ROM memory.
If you use a typical radiometer at terrestrial temperatures in the IR band, you must change ranges in order to focus in on a particular source of heat. In hand-held units, the size of the heat source can be no more than about 1″ diameter.
In summary, there is no such thing as a radiometer that can measure the surface temperature of the Earth.
As you know Gordon, the idiots try to claim CO2 causes a 33K rise above the temperature Earth should be. They compare Earth’s average temp, 288K, to the temperature of an imaginary sphere, 255K. When I pointed out that comparison means nothing, Ball4 started claiming the 255K was “measured”. The only problem was he couldn’t find where it was “measured”.
Grasping at straws, he ended up claiming it was “measured” at TOA, which is just as invalid as most everything else he claims.
The “33K” is one of the “foundations” of the AGW nonsense. But, it’s probably one of the easiest to debunk. Just ask Ball4….
Gordon Robertson
Ball4 is correct. I will link you to some material you can read.
The Outgoing Longwave Radiation is measured.
When Ball4 says “Earth’s brightness temperature” that is defined to mean the temperature a blackbody would be if it emitted the same energy as is measured by satellites.
For the proper definition of brightness temperature:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/brightness-temperature
The measured values of Earth’s radiant energy at TOA is around 240 W/m^2 which would give a brightness temperature of 255 K confirming what Ball4 stated.
He did provide a link to CERES data, he can’t make one look at it.
Here is an article you should read so you understand the ideas.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/apme/32/5/1520-0450_1993_032_0813_erbroo_2_0_co_2.xml?tab_body=pdf
This is an image of measured outgoing long-wave radiation
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/30368
Norman, as usual, you don’t understand any of this.
It makes no sense to compare surface to TOA temperatures. NO.SENSE.AT.ALL.
You are comparing apples to dead cows. Numerous links you don’t understand ain’t science.
Just admit the reality. The 255K is the calculated value from an imaginary sphere.
Also Norman, you need to find a credible source that has data for TOA. You need to know how the data were collected. Right now, you have NOTHING.
One source claims TOA is 200K!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_temperature#/media/File:Comparison_US_standard_atmosphere_1962.svg
Beliefs ain’t science.
Clint R
I gave a link to the meaning of the term “brightness temperature” look it up.
The average global measured Outgoing Longwave radiation is around 240 W/m^2. If you look at the links they do provide the data and explain, in detail, how the data was obtained. I suggest rather than spouting unsupported opinions that you actually click on the links provided and read the material.
You can go to the CERES website yourself and download their products. Measured values for outgoing longwave radiation. You can make global maps or regional, it is up to you.
Measured temperatures at various places in the atmosphere are not equal to Earth’s Brightness temperature. That would correspond to the outgoing longwave radiation.
You maybe could rethink that Ball4 is correct on his points.
N,
From your link –
“Brightness temperature is the temperature of a blackbody.” Maybe you should link to an authority which actually supports you.
Now is your chance to say what you linked to is incorrect, or really means something else!
Just how stupid are you?
Don’t bother answering – I already have a fair notion. Others may agree, who knows?
Swenson
What? I really do not know what point you are making.
The link is a definition of “brightness temperature”.
“Brightness temperature is the temperature of a blackbody that would emit the same amount of radiation as the targeted body in a specified spectral band.”
If you have a measured average value of 240 W/m^2 for the outgoing longwave radiation you would then have a brightness temperature of 255 K. That is correct meaning of the term.
What you are claiming I have no clue. Sounds like irrational gibberish.
I think you need to go to bed, your thought process is not scrambled and incoherent. Try tomorrow after some good sleep.
Maybe then you can reread your post and go “What did I just post?”
N,
You nitwit. I quoted directly from your link. The definition was from the paper (presumably peer reviewed), titled “Urban Heat Island Modeling for Tropical Climates, 2021”.
Your definition appears to be from the publication’s editors, who then appear to be contradicting the authors of the paper they published. Maybe they didn’t read it, either.
So who to believe? Maybe you should stop providing links that you haven’t actually read through.
FYI, the authors of the quoted paper use phrases like “conceptual ambiguity” and “deficiency in harmony”, so their definition of brightness temperature is probably crap, anyway.
Lesson – read before you appeal to authority, dummy!
Stephen P. Anderson
Those links do not give a global average. They show how the data was obtained and they give different measured values for the different locations.
If you want global average you go to the CERES webpage and build graphs. I do this but you can’t link to the graph on this blog.
There is no measured 240, that is an averaged global amount. The Equator emits more, the poles less. I am not sure if you have a negative to use of averages like Swenson but the 240 would be a global average.
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/data/
This is the link to the data collected and from here you can go to specific data and build graphs. Regional or global. They have software that will calculate global averages based upon the measured values. That is about all I can do for you as I can’t post a graph link. If you have trouble building graphs from this page maybe I can send you instructions.
“In summary, there is no such thing as a radiometer that can measure the surface temperature of the Earth.”
Gordon, thermometers measure the surface temperature of the Earth.
“If you use a typical radiometer at terrestrial temperatures in the IR band, you must change ranges in order to focus in on a particular source of heat. In hand-held units, the size of the heat source can be no more than about 1″ diameter.”
Gordon still writes EMR is heat. No, Gordon, it is the EMR source & not heat being measured by radiometer. My thermometer measures kinetic temperature and my radiometer measures EMR and both measure 32F for ice water and 212F for boiling water just like radiometers using the same methodology and same type of instrument measure 255K for our planet’s brightness temperature.
Temperature is not heat!
—–
“The 255K is the calculated value from an imaginary sphere.”
Using 1LOT with measured inputs so, Clint, nothing is imaginary to compare calculated planetary 255K to the measured planetary 255K.
“One source claims TOA is 200K!”
That’s thermometer kinetic energy at a certain location, Clint, at 100km in the atm. where radiometers observe our planetary 255K at TOA is ~700km in space so try to get your facts straight before using links you don’t understand.
—–
Swenson, blackbody radiation exists to calibrate radiometer instrumentation, blackbodies do not exist. Back to school for Swenson.
Norman, you need a credible link that shows the data clearly that you believe in. And, where’how was it collected.
Until then, you have NOTHING.
Clint R; As you have nothing we will happily ignore you any time.
There are no radiometers that measure the surface temperature of 255K. Tsat mean= 288K (plus or minus 1K)
Stephen, earthen surface temperature 288K is measured by thermometer not radiometer. Look up GHCN.
Norman,
So, I read through the one NASA study you linked. I don’t see anywhere in the study where it says the Earth’s radiant energy is around 240W/m^2, and that would give a brightness temperature of 255K. It looks like many data points are all over the place and don’t correlate any of them to a temperature. Can you cite the paragraph where it states that?
Stephen P. Anderson
This link has a graph of global outgoing longwave radiation (given at 238 W/m^2 which is an average). This one has lots of graphs of measured outgoing longwave radiation so you get an idea of how that global number was arrived at. Equator is higher, and poles are lower.
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/10/10/1539/htm
Norman,
Again, the author isn’t stating what you and Ball4 claim. Also, Vournas isn’t stating that less energy leaves the Earth than hits the Earth from the Sun, and that the planet is warmed by the Sun. Through logic, deduction, measurement, math, physics, etc., he is stating that it isn’t due to GHE. Have you seen his reasoning about Venus and its atmospheric density and how he corrects for a planet with an atmosphere? And shows how it supports his assertions? And, why Earth has no GHE because of its low atmospheric density?
Stephen, Vournas completely ignores the earthen atm. so of course he is stating that surface warming isn’t in part due to atm. GHE.
Norman, your link ASSUMES that value. Then, they correlate their data to fit that belief.
“Following [5], we put the HIRS and CERES OLR on the same absolute scale. We make the OLR equal to the reference value of 238 W/m2 for the period 20052014. Therefore, we multiply the HIRS OLR with a factor 0.997134 and we multiply the CERES OLR with a factor 0.990837. The ERBE WFOV OLR is made equal to the HIRS OLR over the period 1985-1998. Therefore, we multiply the ERBE WFOV OLR by 0.995169.
That ain’t science.
Ball4,
No, he doesn’t. Look at the information regarding Venus. It is just that the Earth’s atmosphere, like the Moon, Mars, Mercury, etc., is thin. So when you put the planet with atmosphere correction, it is so tiny it affects the result only minutely.
Look at Venus? Stephen, I wrote Vournas ignores the earthen atm. IR opacity.
For Venus, the surface atm. is opaque in the main IR bands & nowhere does Vournas include that atm. physics. So of course Vournas misses the proper GHE on both worlds.
Ball4,
What are you talking about? Venus is 96% CO2. It does have GHE as Vournas points out.
He does. Go through his website. Stop assuming.
Stephen, it is a waste of time going to that website. The content of Vournas’ comments here is enough to determine that.
What does Vournas report for Venus GHE?
475K
Earlier, bobdroege attempted to sound sciency, by claiming a single molecule must be in a “ground state”, and incapable of emitting photons, which would indicate that its temperature is above absolute zero.
Even Wikipedia is occasionally right –
“According to the third law of thermodynamics, a system at absolute zero temperature exists in its ground state . . . ”
bobdroege demonstrates that he cannot even comprehend the sources on which he depends.
What an idiot he is!
Just another climate crackpot GHE believer, who cannot even describe the deity which he worships.
Swenson,
I don’t believe I said what you claim I said.
One thing I said was this
“At temperatures normally encountered in the atmosphere, most molecular vibrations are in the ground state.”
Prove me wrong dipshit
Here’s the greenhouse effect for you:
More CO2 or other polyatomic gases in the atmosphere between the Sun and a thermometer, makes the thermometer read moar hotter more better, on average, over many Moons.
bob d…”“At temperatures normally encountered in the atmosphere, most molecular vibrations are in the ground state.””
***
It doesn’t make sense to talk about the ground state of a molecule since the word ‘molecule’ is just a name for two or more atomic nucleii bonded by electrons. Each atom in the molecule has a specific ground state which is the lowest energy state for the electrons IN THAT ATOM.
If you are going to insist on referring to a ground state for a molecule you ned to specify the ground state of each atom in the molecule which is the ground state for all electrons in each atom.
Good luck.
In a hydrogen atom with one electron, the ground state is the lowest energy level the electron can occupy. That gets more complicated as you add electrons with multi electron orbital energy levels since some electrons may be at the ground state level while others are not. It’s not till all electrons of an atom are at their lowest energy level that you can claim the atom is in its ground state.
If you have a molecule like H2, then both electrons in both atoms must be at ground state before you can claim the molecule H2 is at ground state.
Try that with a molecule like methane, CH4. Each hydrogen atom is bonded to the carbon atom by shared electrons. Each electron can be at different energy levels but CH4 cannot be in the ground state till each one of those electrons is in the ground state.
It appears that the term ground state has different meanings. Some use ground state to indicate the non-excited state of an atom. Obviously, absolute zero is the ultimate ground state but we have to be able to reference a ground state at room temperature, which is obviously relative.
Gordon Robertson
You have some extreme mental block against the concept of molecular vibrations. I am not sure what is the cause of the block. You have some understanding of atoms and electrons but you fail with what a molecular vibration is and how it alone can generate EMR.
EMR is created when you have a changing electric and magnetic field. An electron and proton can cause this but those result in higher energy photons or EMR (UV-visible-near IR). At lower energies the electrons remain bound in their respective orbitals. The nuclei of the atoms in the molecule are what cause molecular vibrations. MiD-IR generates molecular vibrations when it is absorbed. There are a known variety of molecular vibrations. Linus Pauling accepts this as a fact as do all Chemists.
Again I will link you to the concept. Read it and try to understand what is being said and try to understand the electric charge of a dipolar molecule has a charge imbalance and vibrations in this charge cause the emission of IR energy equivalent to the energy of the vibration.
https://chem.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Physical_and_Theoretical_Chemistry_Textbook_Maps/Book%3A_Symmetry_(Vallance)/01%3A_Chapters/1.24%3A_Molecular_Vibrations
N,
You wrote –
“The nuclei of the atoms in the molecule are what cause molecular vibrations.”
Nonsense, besides being completely irrelevant.
Consider remotely sensing temperature, with a vacuum between the source of heat and the target. Just for fun, figure out how lead and argon may be in thermal equilibrium, having the same temperature, and you can measure their temperature remotely – showing the same degree of “hotness” for both.
You really are a delusional little climate crank, aren’t you?
Have you accepted that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature from the molten state, yet?
I thought not.
Swenson
I am sorry but I cannot follow the purpose of your post or how it relates at all to molecular vibrations and the emission of Mid-range IR.
If you can explain how your post concerns this than be more clear. You are not seeming to communicate a valid point.
Not sure why you think that I do not accept the Earth’s surface has cooled from a molten state to a more solid one. Where did I indicate that this wan not the case. Also the Earth still has quite a bit of molten and liquid hot regions so it is still quite a ways from losing its molten condition.
N,
Well, that’s a breakthrough! You accept that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature from the molten state – although I suspect you are going to twist and writhe, and claim that you didn’t really mean it.
As to the rest, claiming that “The nuclei of the atoms in the molecule are what cause molecular vibrations.”, while possibly not the silliest thing you have ever said, is the silliest thing that occurs to
me at the moment.
Maybe you would like to double down, and repeat your idiocy?
I assume you now realise that you opened your mouth before engaging your brain (or your equivalent). No matter, have you figured out how to sense temperature across a vacuum? You can’t find a “nuclear based molecular vibration meter”, can you?
You are a blathering idiot. Keep ducking and weaving. Maybe you could be guest commenter on Ken Rice’s strange blog – like that other peanut, Willard! How does that sound?
Swenson
Rather than pretending you know things, it would help you learn some real science. Read the link I posted to Gordon on molecular vibrations.
It is most obvious you do not know what it means yet you rant like a madman pretending you are this knowledgeable poster.
Learn something then report back, until then….
N,
Unfortunately, your link does not contain any reference to your nonsense about atomic nuclei causing molecular vibrations. Understandable, because it is gibberish that you made up.
Learn to read and comprehend, before trying to appear intelligent.
Try posting another random link if you wish. You can always hope nobody will read it.
Idiot.
Swenson
The link actually does, it says in water hydrogen atoms move back and forth.
Since that link went over your comprehension this one states it more clearly for you.
Please halt the insult and deeming tone when you are wrong. If you want to act as a superior intellect, at least get the correct information. Your ignorance does not do well for you.
https://www.chem.purdue.edu/courses/chm424/Handouts/16.1%20Molecular%20Vibrations.pdf
N,
Your link still does not say what you think it does. You wrote “The nuclei of the atoms in the molecule are what cause molecular vibrations.”
No they don’t. Without any external energy input, molecules will reach a point of minimal energy. The things we describe as electrons, neutrons, protons, molecular bonds, etc., still exist. The quantum world is counter intuitive, and often bizarre. For example, if you set up an experiment based on photons behaving like particles, you will get particle like results. An experiment assuming wave-like behaviour will produce wavy results.
Don’t blame me, that is how the universe works. Unfortunately, many very intelligent people refuse to accept experimental reality. Einstein refused to accept that God would “play at dice.” Bad luck for Einstein. Nobody has yet managed to disprove the uncertainty principle, although many have tried.
So tell me what relevance you think “molecular vibrations” have to your non-existent GHE. Can’t think of any at all?
Gee, what a surprise – not!
Gordon,
There is a ground state for each possible transition, there are more transitions available than the electronic ones for the electrons in atoms.
With the hydrogen molecule, both electrons in both atoms can be in their electronic ground state, but the atoms can be vibrating back and forth, and that vibrational state could be in an excited state.
You could learn a thing or two.
b,
I don’t have to prove you are an ignorant idiot. That fact is self evident. Anybody can read the nonsense you wrote, and arrive at the same conclusion. You really have no clue, do you?
I see you still can’t say where the greenhouse effect may be observed and measured.
Your infantile assertion that placing more insulation between a thermometer and a heat source will increase the temperature of the thermometer, just shows how disconnected from reality you are!
Carry on, bob. If you need assistance with more subtle vulgarity, let me know. Yours does not rise above the usual ineffectual climate crackpot variety. “Dipshit”? Is that really the best you can come up with?
Swenson,
You don’t know what the fuck you are talking about, I do.
Get a life.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
The “moon on the left” is rotating about an external axis (“revolving”), and not rotating about an internal axis (“rotating”). One of the mistakes the “Spinners” make is to think that the “moon on the right” is the one that is rotating about an external axis and not rotating about an internal axis. That is wrong. Sorry bobdroege, but you are thick, fat, and wrong when you think this.
DREMT is wrong as usual. That’s the problem with being in a tiny, tiny, clique who does acknowledge real science and scientists, including Newton.
If I am wrong, then this text is wrong:
https://mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
Fig. 2(b) shows a rectangle rotating about an external axis, without rotating about an internal axis. It moves as per the MOTL.
Prof. Matlapudi Madhavi’s text is plain correct but YOU are plain wrong.
You will easily find her official email address at the
Maturi Venkata Subba Rao Engineering College in India, and could send a message asking about her meaning in puncto Lunar spin.
The key sentence is “…with all its particles moving along concentric circles.”
The MOTL has all of its particles moving along concentric circles. The MOTR does not. The MOTL is therefore the one that is rotating about an external axis without rotating about an internal axis.
I am sure Madhavi would agree with the “Spinners”. However, that will be because she is defining “orbit” or “revolution” as something other than “rotation about an external axis”.
Fig. 2(b) shows a rectangle rotating about an external axis, without rotating about an internal axis as observed from the rectangle. It moves as per the MOTL one rotation on its own axis per orbit inertially. Thus I am also sure Madhavi would agree.
Two choices, Ball4. The description “rotating about an external axis and not rotating about an internal axis” can either apply to the MOTL or the MOTR. Which do you pick?
So you support your claim with a riddle, Kiddo.
That’s just great.
And DREMT’s riddle is not well-posed, Willard. Typical for DREMT.
No riddle, just a well-posed question that exposes the error of thinking in Ball4’s endless “as observed from…” distraction. I’m happy that Ball4’s refusal to answer reveals he understands the point I successfully made.
Of course it’s a riddle, Kiddo.
Reread this comment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-867666
until you understand it.
I repeat my previous comments, which refute your response, and put you on ignore.
Here, Kiddo:
That’s playing the Riddler, which is trolling.
Please stop.
Ignore.
I’ll add it to your Master Argument.
Thanks!
The Riddler. I like it.
DREMT doesnt even understand the riddle DREMT posed has no unique answer being so ill-posed. When The Riddler manages to successfully pass the pre-req.s to get into Madhavi’s course the situation might even become clear to The Riddler known as DREMT aka a sophistry of climate site manager.
MOTL or MOTR, Ball4?
What has concentric circles to do with orbits? Other than the ellipse that the COG follows.
Concentric circles has to do with whether or not an object is rotating about an external axis without rotating about an internal axis, which is the subject of this sub-thread that I started, and which you are butting in on.
Concentric circles are not ellipses which is what the COG moves in.
The particles comprising the MOTL are moving in concentric circles about an external axis.
… only if it’s a perfect circle, Kiddo.
Otherwise you need two foci and some translation between the two.
“The particles comprising the MOTL are moving in concentric circles about an external axis.”
All particles for both objects are in an orbit. Which is not a set of concentric circles at all.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
“Fig. 2(b) shows a rectangle rotating about an external axis” to which it is rigidly attached.
Gravity does not act like that. It acts on the COG.
Actually that is incorrect, RLH. The aggregate of all the mass is indeed at the COG, but Newton proved gravity is acting on ALL the mass. The effect is to keep the same face toward the center of orbit, if there is no axial rotation on the orbiting object.
It’s the same basic motion as we see on the ball-on-a-string, or Moon.
The effect is to keep the same face toward the center of orbit, if there is no axial rotation as observed on the orbiting object.
It’s the same basic motion as observed on the ball-on-a-string, or Moon.
DREMT and Clint simply reveal their location of observation.
Two choices, Ball4. The description “rotating about an external axis and not rotating about an internal axis” can either apply to the MOTL or the MOTR. Which do you pick?
Sorry Ball4, but the observation is from Earth, or center of orbit. That’s how axial rotation is determined. Otherwise you don’t know what your talking about.
If the Moon is a ball on a string, Pup, it’s a ball that wobbles on a string that stretches and shrinks.
Try again.
I suppose you could model Moon with a ball on an elastic string. But an easier way to model Moon would be with an elliptical track on a tilted deck.
The ball-on-a-string is only a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
Try it and report, Pup.
pups continues to fail, ignoring the fact that the Earth-Moon vector which it uses as a reference is in fact rotating wrt inertial space. Therefore, observations based on that vector can not be used to determine the Moon’s rotation or lack thereof.
The effective point that gravity operates on is the COG. Most definitely not the surface which is where a string would be attached.
A yo-yo might indeed be a better model.
E. Swanson uses the word “vector”, but he obviously doesn’t have a clue about the subject.
I guess I will have to find time to show the vector analysis.
pups wrote:>blockquote>
I guess I will have to find time to show the vector analysis.
What? I thought you didn’t “do math”. I’ll believe it when you present it. As for time, if you stopped trolling you would have lots of time to do some real work.
E. Swanson is so flummoxed, frazzled, and frustrated that he forgot how to use block-quote.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint R is wrong. Again.
DR EMPTY,
You manage to get a whole lot wrong in a single post.
First, the object in fig 2(b) is not a rectangle, it is an irregular object.
Second, the axis it is rotating about is going through (O), which is part of the object.
Hence the object is rotating around an internal axis.
But it does move as the MOTL
Therefore the Moon on the left is rotating around an internal axis.
And of course this is wrong
“but you are thick, fat, and wrong”
Because
“I can’t sing, I ain’t pretty, and my legs are thin”
Point O is external to the rectangle. The rectangle rotates about an external axis. That there is a connecting rod from the rectangle to point O is irrelevant to the point being made, other than the obvious fact that it means the rectangle cannot rotate about an internal axis. The particles making up the rectangle move in concentric circles about point O. The particles making up the MOTL also move in concentric circles about an external axis. Thus the MOTL is rotating about an external axis, and not about an internal axis.
The COG moves in an ellipse, not a circle. And gravity effectively operates on the COG, not the surface or anything else.
DR EMPTY,
you can’t make up facts.
The point O is part of the body that is rotating, which is not a rectangle. And is rotating about a part of that body, on an internal axis.
Sorry you lose again
It is as I described. I win.
Sorry, no! DREMT, Madhavi’s 2(b) object is rotating around an internal axis as is shown in her Fig. 2(b) as bob writes. Redraw the attachment area to a string and redraw the rectangle as an attached ball and you have a ball-on-string object also rotating about an internal axis. Just like our moon.
DREMT has been wrong for so long about Fig. 2(b) that the DREMT screenname is synonymous with being factually wrong.
“I win.”
Pats DR EMPTY on the head and gives him a kewpie doll
“It is as I described” Wrong.
I am correct, as explained.
You are wrong and explained wrongly also.
You have no idea what is even being discussed.
You have no idea.
OK, RLH.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
Your pet GIF is indeterminate. There’s not a best way to read it. You can’t use it to support your definition game.
Here’s how you trick works. Let L be the moon-on-the-left and R be the moon-on-the-right. Let G stand for geometry and P for physics. Let also () denote an evaluation function, and 1 and 0 be the result of interpreting if it applies to our Moon, or would apply in the case of counterfactuals.
Here are the answers if we stand aside the issue of frames of reference:
G(L) = 1
P(L) = 1
G(R) = 0
P(R) = 1
The only interpretation that fails is to view the moon-on-the-right geometrically. Your puzzle is indeterminate because G and P behave differently when looking at the two sides.
Your trick is dispelled when we distinguish geometry from physics.
Besides, one does not simply define geometric terms with a GIF.
Willard, your nonsense does not involve orbital motion.
No tricks here, Willard, sorry.
bob is simply wrong to say that the MOTR is the one that is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about an internal axis. That description only applies correctly to the MOTL.
…as observed from the MOTL.
Two choices, Ball4. The description “rotating about an external axis and not rotating about an internal axis” can either apply to the MOTL or the MOTR. Which do you pick?
More riddles, Kiddo?
No riddle, Little One. See above.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
OK, Willard.
DR EMPTY,
Don’t try to drag me into your bullshit arguments.
Just pointing out how you were wrong, so others do not make the same mistake.
You were fooled by Flop’s demonstration because you had the incorrect notion of rotation, Kiddo.
You still are, and Gordo is paying for it.
The MOTL is the one that is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about an internal axis, not the MOTR.
And so we’re back to SHORT:
(SHORT) The Moon cannot spin because I don’t see it spinning.
Non sequitur.
Exactly.
> That description only applies correctly to the MOTL.
That’s, like, your opinion, Kiddo.
At least you are improving on your Master Argument (v. 1.9):
(GIF) In the Wiki GIF on tidal locking, orbit without spin looks like the moon on the left, not the moon on the right. Orbit with spin looks like the moon on the right.
Your trick is in the “applies”. It does not come from physics, but geometry. This isn’t a geometry problem, but a physics problem.
Hence why it’s a trick.
The MOTL is the one that is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about an internal axis, not the MOTR.
So you say, Kiddo. So you say.
How about you support your claim for a change?
I have supported it to the ends of the Earth, Willard, as you know, and I am certainly correct.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-867536
Meanwhile, bob has never once supplied any support for the idea that rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis is as per the MOTR, yet you swallow that idea whole.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Bob gave you a simple demonstration based on physics.
You misinterpret Madhavi by turning her textbook into a geometrical exercise.
Try to solve 12.3 and report.
DREMT is certainly correct when observing from the object specified. Inertially, not so much, as pointed out by Madhavi’s text.
And as demonstrated by Bob.
DR EMPTY,
I call bullshit.
Here is part of the caption to the Moon on the left Moon on the right gif!
” If the Moon were not rotating at all, it would alternately show its near and far sides to Earth, while moving around Earth in orbit, as shown in the right figure.”
I guess that proves you wrong.
No bob, it just means that they are referring to something other than rotation about an external axis when they use the word orbit.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_period
Willard has been waiting all day to supply another link that does not prove me wrong.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo. Orbit clearly means what Bob makes it mean, whereas you’re just trolling.
Please stop.
bob is wrong, because he thinks the MOTR is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about an internal axis. Putting you on ignore, Willard.
Now the DREMT Riddler can read minds.
DREMT is just wrong. As always.
The MOTL is the one that is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about an internal axis, not the MOTR…
…as observed from the MOTL.
…no, as observed from the same perspective you see when you look at the gif.
> bob is wrong, because he thinks
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
You don’t know what Bob thinks.
More importantly, you don’t know why he said what he said.
Find it. Report.
Willard knows full well that bob has stated before that the MOTR is rotating about an external axis and not an internal axis. He is just trolling, as usual.
Please stop probing my mind, Kiddo.
It’s easy to understand why Bob said what he said. But you won’t find back where he did.
You also won’t correct Pup who has been wrong at least twice tonight. Very dishonest of you if you ask me.
So don’t ask.
He is just trolling, as usual.
You deserve everything Bob sends your way, Kiddo.
You keep missing his point. That’s why it’s so much fun!
Said the troll.
Yes, RLH, Willard is a troll. Well said.
No U, Kiddo.
s.t.v.w.x.y.z.
A way to determine if the moon is rotating is by setting up a Foucault pendulum.
A more immediate way is just to observe the lunar sunset and sunrise as the moon rotates on its own axis. A little more involved, the lunar day/night twilight terminator can be observed moving across the lunar craters as the moon rotates on its own axis with a 4″ Celestron in your backyard on a moonlit night.
It’s also a good way to show that Kiddo is clinging to the wrong definition, as according to Madhavi’s handout it’d be a motion about fixed point, not “pure rotation.”
There are also words missing from her description of a rotation of a rigid body about a fixed axis.
Yes, she assumes the reader has passed the pre-req.s for her class. Obviously DREMT has not done so.
She also wanted to make sure that students needed to attend her class by leaving fields to write the answers.
However, I’m referring to her:
https://mvsrec.edu.in/images/dynamicsofrigidbodies.pdf
That sentence has not been finished.
There are 0 occurrences of gravity in that document. So it has nothing to do with orbits at all.
Ken, the Foucault pendulum has been tried before. It’s just another fail.
The pendulum can’t tell the difference between orbiting and rotating.
The pendulum is in more than two dimensions, Pup.
Trolls have no purpose in life, Dud.
Of course you have a purpose, Pup.
Don’t sell yourself short.
See….
” … but Newton proved gravity is acting on ALL the mass. The effect is to keep the same face toward the center of orbit, if there is no axial rotation on the orbiting object. ”
One more of countless times, the same lie about what Newton really wrote in Book III of his Principia:
PROPOSITION XVII. THEOREM XV.
That the diurnal motions of the planets are uniform, and that the libration of the moon arises from its diurnal motion.
The Proposition is proved from the first Law of Motion, and Cor. 22, Prop. LXVI, Book I.
Jupiter, with respect to the fixed stars, revolves in 9h.56′; Mars in 24h.39′; Venus in about 23h.; the Earth in 23h.56′; the Sun in 25½ days, and the moon in 27 days, 7 hours, 43′.
These things appear by the Phænomena.
The spots in the sun's body return to the same situation on the sun's disk, with respect to the earth, in 27½ days; and therefore with respect to the fixed stars the sun revolves in about 25½ days.
But because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb, therefore the same face of the moon will be always nearly turned to the upper focus of its orb
*
In ten years, if this blog then still exists, you will see again and again the same or similar flatearthists telling us the same nonsense about Newton’s work.
The most ignorant brazen and dumbest among all these flatearthists even told us a few months ago:
” Newton was wrong. “
No Bindidon, Newton wasn’t wrong. He was just using the vernacular of the day. He hadn’t done his work with calculus yet.
You don’t know anything about the issue. And, you can’t learn.
” He was just using the vernacular of the day. He hadn’t done his work with calculus yet. ”
People li8ke you always invent something that fits to their personal narrative.
That is the very basic principle of denial.
And what you deny even more is the work done by so many people who followed Newton: Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace and hundreds of others.
Keep denying, Clint R.
No problem for me at all.
Yeah, I think you’ve listed those “hundreds of others” that you don’t understand. The Internet is a great tool for people trying to fake it. You can search on things and then try to pretend you understand them. Norman does that all the time.
You have no grasp of orbital motion, and you can’t learn.
Clint R: You have no grasp of orbital motion, gravity or COG.
I go away for a day or two and the site gets worse.
Gordon Robertson, ClintR, DREMT and Stephen Anderson are living in a scientific Ruritania.
Ent, you’re funnier when you attempt some science. Like the time you stated Earth puts out more energy than Sun.
Now, that was funny.
The funny thing is, E Man, everything I said from here on out:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-867489
is 100% correct, and even people on your own side of the debate agree. I did not even get onto the main areas of disagreement in the “Spinner” vs. “Non-Spinner” argument. This was merely a point that only a few extremist “Spinners” take issue over. Most “Spinners” with any physics understanding agree that the MOTL is rotating about an external axis and not rotating about an internal axis. They just think this can also be described as curvilinear translation in a circle, plus rotation about an internal axis.
You won’t understand. Never mind.
Simpler than that, Kiddo:
(SHORT) The Moon cannot spin because I don’t see it spinning.
There’s not much else behind the Moon Dragon cranks’ Master Argument.
Willard revels in his supreme ignorance. Ignore.
Here’s where we’re at, Kiddo:
THE MOON DRAGON MASTER ARGUMENT (v. 2.0)
**Proposition**. The Moon does not spin, i.e. it does not rotate on its axis. It only orbits around the Earth. *Footnote: Mathematical model pending.*
(SHORT) The Moon cannot spin because I do not see it spinning.
(REVOLUTION!) Revolution can be defined as a rotation about an external axis. Orbit and revolution are synonyms.
(LIKE A BOS) The ball-on-a-string (or BOS) illustrates orbit without spin. It implies rotation but not translation.
(CANNONBALL)
(IMPOSSIBLE) If the Moon spun while in orbit it would rotate 360 degrees and all sides would be observable from the Earth.
(GIF) In the Wiki GIF on tidal locking, orbit without spin looks like the moon on the left, not the moon on the right. Orbit with spin looks like the moon on the right.
(TRANSLATION) It is not possible for the Moon to orbit and spin without a translation.
(PURE) One should not describe as a general plane motion that which can be described as a pure rotation or a pure translation. *Shows an engineer handout*.
(FLOP’S TRICK) Flop showed how to rotate an object about an external axis in an ellipse.
(IF-BY-WHISKEY) It would not be possible to define revolution by rotation or to program a rotation in an ellipse if rotation was only around a circle.
(SO WHAT) If some translation were involved in that movement, so what?
(SIMPLES) Our position is simpler because it is one motion instead of two combined.
(LRO) I have already explained why the LRO does not provide evidence of lunar axial rotation. *Gestures at the infinite*.
(FRAMES) Inertial reference frame confuses orbiting with rotating.
(NAME DROPS) Tesla. Henry Perical. That csaitruth guy. Aleksandar S. Tomic.
(DUDEISM) Well, that’s, like, my opinion. I have every right to think differently, and will continue to do so.
***
You need to work on your cannonball.
No, that is just a bunch of misrepresentation and deliberate trolling. Ignore.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
Prove it.
It is on you to provide support for your quotes if you are asserting they can be attributed to me. You have re-written much of what I originally wrote, completely invented some quotes, and deliberately distort in others. In short, you are a disgrace. Ignore.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
They’re not quotes, but they’re better than the quotes I had to start with.
The argument is better worded than you care to do.
DREMT is as wrong as always. Ignore.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-868724
As I said before, DREMT is wrong as always. Ignore.
I repeat my previous link.
You can repeat wrongness all you like. Does not make it correct.
Ibid.
Idiot.
Ditto.
I can agree with you being an idiot.
Oh, I was just repeating my previous comments.
Repeatabley being wrong is something you are good at.
Repeatabley!?
Years ago already, I tried to explain that Moon’s motion is by far too complex in space and time to be described by such trivial figures as MOTL / MOTR.
The only way to properly understand lunar motion is to do the same job as Tobias Mayer did 270 years ago:
– to meticulously observe a Moon crater’s motion during one and a half year, and to record these observations accurately;
– to compute, using the rules of spherical trigonometry, the selenocentric motions of the crater with respect to the vernal point;
and
– to finally compute
— the inclination of the lunar spin axis wrt the Ecliptic
— the lunar spin period.
*
1. Why aren’t you honest enough to admit that your would never be able to scientifically contradict that work of Mayer, and hence are by no means able to claim he was wrong?
2. How is it possible that Mayer in 1750, Habibullin in 1963, and numerous scientists since the retroflector deposit on the Moon by Soviet and American missions, come all to exactly the same value for the lunar spin period?
Bindidon, you’re still confused about libration.
See, you just can’t learn.
I replied many times to your nonsense about libration.
” See, you just can’t learn. ”
You are not even able to properly list their different kinds.
Swenson would say
“Ah well ah well”
Yes Bindidon, you’re still confused about libration.
Clint R: You are confused about everything. Abd wrong about it too.
It occurs to me that the rotation of the Moon has been measured directly.
Each Apollo lunar lander carried a PGNCS.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_PGNCS
This navigation unit included an inertial measurement unit with three gyroscopes. These were running after each landing and before each takeoff.
That is twelve measurement periods.
Telemetry would show whether the Moon was rotating or not.
Anyone got access to NASA’s PGNCS telemetry archive?
Ent, do you still not understand the difference between orbiting and rotating?
Use the ball-on-a-string, to help you understand. The ball is orbiting, as you swing it in circles. But, it is NOT rotating. If there were axial rotation, the string would wrap around the ball.
It’s a really easy concept to grasp, except for braindead cult idiots.
You need to coordinate with Kiddo, Pup:
(REVOLUTION!) Revolution can be defined as a rotation about an external axis. Orbit and revolution are synonyms.
See also:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-865853
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-862511
The ball on a string is rotating about an external axis (orbiting), but not rotating about an internal axis (rotating). As Bindidon agrees.
… as observed from the ball.
No.
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team
” The ball on a string is rotating about an external axis (orbiting), but not rotating about an internal axis (rotating). As Bindidon agrees. ”
As usual, denialists like you manipulate the blog by intentionally misrepresenting my meaning.
Because with our hint on my agreement on the trivial fact that this is valid for the ball on a string, you silently try to pretend I would think this to be valid for the Moon as well.
This is absolutely dishonest.
Clint R
Didn’t you want to teach us about the five different kinds of lunar libration?
No, I never tried to pretend you agreed with us on the moon, Bindidon. But you do agree on the ball on a string, which was the topic of discussion at the time.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Binny agreed on one reading only, not categorically.
If Bindidon disagrees with us in any way about the ball on a string, let him speak now.
Roy’s pulpit bully is more into writing mode than reading mode, Kiddo. He does not do nuance. Pay no attention to him and all will be well.
A ball on a string is only relevant to a ball on a string.
A string is connected to a surface, not the COG that gravity operates on.
The “Soft Spinners”, who agree that the ball on a string and Mt. Everest etc. are not rotating on their own axes, but still think the moon is, are nothing new.
Non nova sed nove, Kiddo.
Please stop trolling.
rlh…”A string is connected to a surface, not the COG that gravity operates on”.
***
Whereas gravity as a vector is shown acting through the COG that mainly applies to a uniform rigid body like the Moon in a circular orbit. Gravity does not act as a single vector on the COG in an elliptical orbit, it has two components acting on the COG. It’s like a ball rolling down an incline where gravity acts vertically on the ball. However, there are two components to the force must be considered, one straight down the slope and one perpendicular to the incline face.
If you consider the Moon in an elliptical orbit, you can determine the tangent to its orbital path at any point. Having found the tangent line, and this applies to any continuous curve, you can draw a radial line (R) perpendicular to the tangent line that defines a circle, of radius R whose circumference coincides with the curve at any point, P.
If the orbit is circular, we know R always points to the centre of the circle. Therefore, gravitational force is displayed as a vector with tail at the Moon’s COG and its nose at the Earth’s centre. In actuality, it’s sufficient to draw it’s tail at the Moon’s COG and make the vector any length, as long as it points at Earth’s centre.
If the orbit is elliptical, that no longer applies. You can find the tangent line to any point on an ellipse. Draw a line from each focal point to the Moon’s centre, and bisect the angle formed. A line perpendicular to that bisector through the Moon’s centre, is tangent to the orbital path.
Naturally, the bisector is the same radial line we described earlier. If you can calculate the radius R of the circle described, and there is a method, you can use it to create a circle whose circumference coincides with the orbital path at any point on the curve.
It’s important to understand that the bisector is a line that is always perpendicular to the side of the Moon that always face the Earth. If the orbit was circular, we would always see nothing but the near face. However, in an elliptical orbit (where are you Tim???), as you can see, the near face is pointed (bisector) slightly away from the Earth’s centre, enabling us to see around the corner (libration…where are you Binny???).
The gravitational force acting on the Moon is now broken into two components. One component acts along the bisector and the other is perpendicular to the bisector and pointed at Earth’s centre.
It’s also important to realize these effects are small but significant. The slight reduction in gravitational force on the near face allows the Moon’s linear momentum to have a slightly greater effect, hence the elliptical elongation of the lunar orbit.
The ball on the string serves one purpose only, to demonstrate a rigid body orbiting someone’s head while keeping the same face toward that person’s head while the rigid body cannot rotate about its COG due to tension from the string. Had you really wanted to be critical you might have asked how gravity acts on the ball in a vertical direction while it is orbiting the person’s head.
The string not only acts to keep the ball in orbit, it applies a vertical force to counter gravity. Therefore the orbit is complex, since the axis is required to move slightly in order to apply the correct forces. No one cares because the entire point is that the ball is not rotating about its COG while keeping the same face pointed at the axis, the same as the Moon.
binny…”Because with our hint on my agreement on the trivial fact that this is valid for the ball on a string, you silently try to pretend I would think this to be valid for the Moon as well”.
***
Why wouldn’t you? It’s obvious that a rigid body keeping the same face to an external axis, while in orbit, cannot possibly rotate about its own axis.
binny…”Didnt you want to teach us about the five different kinds of lunar libration?”
***
Only longitudinal libration is significant to the debate and we have held several classes on that. You must have been absent.
“Its obvious that a rigid body keeping the same face to an external axis, while in orbit, cannot possibly rotate about its own axis.”
It is obvious that a moving object wrt the fixed stars may or may not rotate about its own axis as it orbits another body. Be that the Moon or the Earth or any other body constrained by gravity to other bodies.
The COG is as its name suggests at the CENTER of an object, not its surface.
Therefore tangents have no part of its operation.
“The ball on the string serves one purpose only”
to describe what happens to a ball on the string.
As gravity effectively operates on the COG, a string attached to a surface has no relevance at all.
I have explained in a previous thread which axis a ball attached to a string cannot rotate about.
Dumb ass Robertson can repeat his ignorant nonsense as long as he wants.
Fact remains that there are five different kinds of lunar libration:
– three optical, apparent ones (latitudinal, longitudinal, diurnal)
and
– two physical (forced, free).
It is evident from a letter he wrote to the German scientist Mercator that near optical librations known since Galilei, Newton was also aware of the existence of a forced physical libration due to gravity exerted by Earth and Sun on the Moon.
Free librations are the least visible ones, and were first detected in the 1960’s by the Russian mathematician S. Habibullin during the evaluation of decades of lunar data collected by Russian astronomers at the Kazan Observatory.
The mathematicians Odile Calamé (1979) and Michèle Moons (1982) provided for the most accurate evaluations of the free lunar librations through processing of Lunar Laser Ranging data.
Only dumb, flatearthist Contrarians doubt about such things.
“The string not only acts to keep the ball in orbit, it applies a vertical force to counter gravity”
The ball is not in orbit around anything nor is the tension in the string opposing gravity.
The string is attached to the surface. Gravity effectively acts on the COG.
If the Moon were rotating, the gyroscopes on a stationary lander would record a rate of 13degrees/day or 0.5 degrees per hour.
If the Moon were not rotating the gyros would show their normal internal drift of 1 milliradian or 0.05 degrees per hour.
“If the Moon were rotating…”
…about which axis?
There’s only one meaning by which you can make sense of what EM is suggesting, Kiddo.
Please stop playing dumb.
Not at all, Little One. If the moon were rotating about an external axis, but not an internal axis, the gyroscopes on a stationary lander would still record a rate of 13 degrees/day or 0.5 degrees per hour.
So you say, Kiddo. So you say.
Where are your calculations?
The point sails over Willard’s little head.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
My first comment to you was that at best you could claim that your interpretation was equivalent. But since you suck at geometry, you can only troll.
Please stop trolling.
Shhhh.
Shhhhhhown your calculations, Kiddo.
Let Eric and Tim see them.
No calculations required. Ever.
Then two consequences obtain, Kiddo.
First, you’re not doing physics.
Second, you’re wrong, for you suck at geometry.
No wonder you keep trolling.
Please stop.
Ent, a gyroscope can’t tell the difference between orbiting and rotating.
You, and the rest of the braindead cult idiots, can’t learn.
The ball-on-a-string is your teacher. You reject learning.
Kiddo keeps making a difference between orbiting and rotating, Pup.
Get together. Have a talk.
Wow, Dud responds within 4 minutes!
I thought I was running out of stalkers….
“If the moon were rotating about an external axis”
Only rigidly connected objects can rotate about an external axis. For gravitationally connected objects its called revolving in an orbit.
Wrong, the axis of rotation need not go through the body of the object, in other words the object does not need to be rigidly connected to rotate about an external axis. Revolution is just another word for rotation about an external axis, and in that motion the same face remains oriented towards the inside of the orbit throughout.
“the axis of rotation need not go through the body of the object”
Only true for rigidly connected objects.
Orbits using gravity are revolutions not rotations.
“in that motion the same face remains oriented towards the inside of the orbit throughout”
By what mechanism and why doesn’t it apply to the Earth when orbiting the Sun?
“By what mechanism and why doesn’t it apply to the Earth when orbiting the Sun?”
“It” does apply. Earth is rotating about its axis.
So is the Moon.
DR EMPTY,
“Revolution is just another word for rotation about an external axis, and in that motion the same face remains oriented towards the inside of the orbit throughout.”
Incorrectamundo,
The counter example being the Earth revolves around the Sun, yet does not have the same face orientated towards the inside of the orbit.
That does not seem to be improving the Master Argument:
(REVOLUTION!) Revolution can be defined as a rotation about an external axis. In that motion the same face remains oriented towards the inside of the orbit throughout. Orbit and revolution are synonyms.
Perhaps Kiddo wishes to correct that brain fart?
Obviously I was defining revolution (rotation about an external axis) with no rotation about an internal axis.
Of course you were defining revolution without spin as orbit without spin, Kiddo.
Consider:
https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287
Was John defining revolution or revolution without spin?
“Obviously I was defining revolution (rotation about an external axis) with no rotation about an internal axis”
So what force causes the Moon to ‘face inwards’ but does not have the same effect on the Earth wrt to the Sun?
The Earth is rotating on its own axis, the moon is not.
… as observed from the moon.
Very repetitive, Ball4.
Look who’s talking, Kiddo.
The Earth is rotating on its own axis, the Moon is also.
Wrong, but the endless back and forth is pointless.
You want pointless, Kiddo?
Here’s pointless:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-867489
No, not pointless at all. Very simple, straightforward, important point that is even agreed with by some of the “Spinners”. Only the usual morons disagree, and kick up a fuss over nothing.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
Your pointless trolling is pointless.
Three years now.
Please stop.
Only the usual morons disagree, and kick up a fuss over nothing.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Read that post again until you understand it:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-867666
It’s obvious you misunderstand Binny, Richard, and Bob.
It’s also obvious that you’re trolling.
Please stop.
…and kick up a fuss over nothing.
“Wrong, but the endless back and forth is pointless.”
I agree you are wrong and all of your arguments are pointless. I’m glad you agree.
…kick up a fuss over nothing.
Just like you do. Your tiny, tiny clique of non-scientific people who insist quite incorrectly that the Moon does not rotate on its axis during an orbit of Earth.
…up a fuss over nothing.
DR EMTPY,
“Obviously I was defining revolution (rotation about an external axis) with no rotation about an internal axis.”
I thought you weren’t changing the definitions to suit your own arguments.
I guess I was wrong!
…a fuss over nothing.
“a fuss over nothing.”
Perfectly describes your viewpoint.
…fuss over nothing.
The only way to resolve this important issue is to attach a string to Moon. The string should be about 100,000 km long and should cost
less than 200 million dollars.
What should cost less than 200 million dollars is a stick artificial
gravity station in LEO.
Testing how artificial gravity works would be more important in my opinion.
From the view of a Lunatic, the Moon does not rotate with respect to the Earth, as the Earth does with respect to the Sun. The Moon orbits the Earth, as the Earth orbits the Sun.
To the Lunatic’s beady eye, the Earth never rises or sets, and remains more or less fixed in the sky, as would the Sun viewed from the Earth, if the Earth stopped rotating about its axis.
Now the Sun rises and sets in the Lunatic’s view, but as the Moon’s orbit is around the Earth rather than the Sun, the Earth-centric sunrise and sunset are analogous to the Lunacentric earthrise and earthset. As mentioned before, the body at the focus of the moon’s orbital ellipse remains in the Lunar sky, never rising nor setting as the Sun appears to do to us Terrans.
In the words of the Sage “What a kerfuffle!”
“The Moon orbits the Earth”
The Moon orbits the Sun also. In fact the influence of the Sun on the Moon is greater than that of the Earth.
earlier RLH wrote x
“A ball on a string is only relevant to a ball on a string.
A string is connected to a surface, not the COG that gravity operates on.”
Would a “spherical yo-yo” suit better than a “ball”? The connecting string attached to the surface of a ball representing the Moon might better model the way in which the force of gravity “string” connects the rotating Earth and the non-rotating Moon.
Or just accept Newton’s explanation. The Moon falls continuously towards the centre of the Earth, whether the Earth spins or not. Pretty simple, but it took someone like Newton to realise it. Most people these days cannot accept that something falling towards the Earth from about 385,000 km away, never actually hits the surface, and is actually slowly receding! (Not due to the nonsensical reasons stated by some of the dimwits at NASA, either.)
Torque transfer? Misunderstanding of conservation laws?
About as reasonable as measuring temperatures in W/m2! Delusional bumblers!
Ah well, good enough for Government work, as they say.
“connects the rotating Earth and the non-rotating Moon”
Both the Earth and the Moon rotate wrt the fixed stars (including the Sun).
RLH,
Bit of a herring of the red variety, wot?
Supposedly this Moon rotation discussion is about Her Selene Highness rotating about an axis through the centre of her mass. If you provide your own definition of rotation, then anything is possible.
Climate crackpots, for example, define a slower rate of cooling as an increase of temperature, and define an increase in temperature in terms of an energy balance comprised of arithmetical operations of fluxes expressed in W/m2!
So you see, to those of particular persuasions, anything can be used to justify anything at all!
And life goes on, regardless. As does the Moon, perpetually hiding one side from us! Suspicious, wouldn’t you say?
[the Devil made me do it]
Only a very, very tiny clique believes that the Moon does not rotate once on its axis per orbit of the Earth.
They are wrong.
billy bob…”the mRNA breaks down quickly giving it the perception that any long-term impact would be minimized. What is unknown and not study is the long-term impact of these specific vaccines and after the message (the m in mRNA) is delivered to the body, how that may impact future responses from our body. Simply has not been done”.
***
For what it’s worth, the mRNA is allegedly from a covid spike protein. Problem is, no one has ever seen a covid spike protein let alone covid itself. Those cute little drawings abounding on the Net of covid as a golf ball with spikes sticking out of it are sci-fi.
The irony is that NIAID, lead by Fauci, produced an alleged photo of covid taken on a transmission electron microscope and none of the particles looked anything like that. The particles are supposed to have the same density, meaning weight/unit volume. Since the content is allegedly RNA, and the RNA molecule is presumably the same weight per strand, then the virus photos should show viruses of the same size. The NIAID photos had some particles 2X the size of others and none showed spikes.
So, the proteins allegedly taken from covid spikes is modified (m in mRNA and the Mod in ModeRNA) and injected into cells. The cells have natural protection against such intrusion of foreign bodies therefore the cells must be fooled into accepting the foreign mRNA. Forcing such substances into a cell can lead to serious issues like cell death, cell mutation, etc.
If the cell does accept the mRNA and begins producing the spike proteins, the immune system will allegedly learn to defeat the protein and hopefully the entire virus.
But wait…as they say in some commercials…how do we know the RNA is from a virus, or the proteins from a spike attached to that virus? We don’t. If the RNA is from natural processes in the body, the immune system will learn to reject itself, a disease called autoimmune disease. It could take years for that to surface.
RNA is found in every cell in the human body and dead cells, disease, stress, being run down, etc., are known to release RNA into the system.
The science is speculative and was introduced by Luc Montagnier for HIV because he could not see HIV on an electron microscope. A more objective scientist might have concluded there is no virus there since seeing a virus on an EM is a prerequisite of a physical isolation of a virus.
Montagnier was convinced there had to be a virus there so he went looking for one using retroviral theory, which was a brand new science at the time. In fact, a pioneer in that field recommended no one presume reverse transcriptase, an enzyme sometimes associated in retroviral theory with a virus, should be presumed to be from a virus since it’s common to other processes. That’s exactly what Montagnier did, found RT and INFERRED a virus.
Subsequently, because HIV could not be isolated physically, Fauci and David Ho used Montagnier’s theory to create an RNA-PCR test for HIV with a similar RNA-PCR test being used for covid. Kary Mullis, who invented PCR, told Fauci he could not use PCT diagnostically in that manner and Fauci told him he was wrong. Subsequently, Mullis called Fauci a liar and a fraud.
A consortium of lawyers in Germany are now launching class-action suits against covidiots, claiming the tests are fraudulent. The leader of the consortium, Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, has already beaten Volskwagern and the Deutsch Bank in court, calling them criminals. He refers to those behind the covid pseudo-science criminals and that they have committed crimes against humanity for forcing people to take the vaccines.
“no one has ever seen a covid spike protein let alone covid itself”
Better let these guys know then.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/health/coronavirus-unveiled.html
entropic…”This navigation unit included an inertial measurement unit with three gyroscopes. These were running after each landing and before each takeoff”.
***
They are irrelevant to lunar rotation. They are used only to orient the lander wrt the stars under zero-gravity conditions. When flying an aircraft, it’s important that you keep oriented to the horizon when its dark. When they fly the lander off the lunar surface, they need to know which way is up. If the Sun is not illuminating the lunar surface where you are taking off, how would you know where you are?
“They are used only to orient the lander wrt the stars under zero-gravity conditions. ”
You accept that the correct reference frame for a spacecraft is orientation and rotation relative to the fixed stars.
Why do you refuse to accept that the Moon is rotating at 0.5 degrees/hour relative to the same fixed stars?
Ent, you STILL don’t get it.
“Relative to the same fixed stars” is NOT proof of axial rotation. Even a ball-on-a-string APPEARs to rotate based on “fixed stars”. But, it has NO axial rotation.
You make the same mistakes over and over, hoping for different results. You can’t learn.
A ball-on-a-string only applies to a ball-on-a-string. Nothing else.
Gravity effectively acts on the COG, not the surface where a string would be attached.
RLH, you must reject the simple analogy, because it ruins your cult beliefs. The ball-on-a-string is a valid model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. It does not match your beliefs, so you must ignore it.
There are numerous things that show Moon has no axial rotation. A vector analysis shows that.
You will reject anything counter to your beliefs. That’s what cults do.
“The ball-on-a-string is a valid model of ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’.”
No it isn’t. It just demonstrates a ball-on-a-string.
“A vector analysis shows that”
Is that a vector analysis of the surface or a vector analysis of the COG?
Gordon Robertson
“They are irrelevant to lunar rotation. They are used only to orient the lander wrt the stars under zero-gravity conditions. ”
They were designed to measure the orientation the lunar module in flight.
However, when the lunar module is on the surface of the moon they can also be used to measure the rotation of the Moon.
Note DREMT’s comment upthread.
” If the moon were rotating about an external axis, but not an internal axis, the gyroscopes on a stationary lander would still record a rate of 13 degrees/day or 0.5 degrees per hour.”
This is key. A measuring instrument designed to measure rotation will show rotation when positioned on the surface of the Moon.
THUS THE MOON IS ROTATING.
You are an engineer. You know that measurement beats theory.
Ent, you keep repeating your false beliefs.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-870471
Robertson? An engineer?
With one exception, not one of my former colleagues who watched this blog has ever believed that Robertson is/has been an engineer.
They say about him:
“Das ist wohl eher so ‘ne Art Daniel Düsentrieb!”
(I think that’s Gyro Gearloose in the Anglo-Saxon corner.)
I remember an exception in our former firm. He was of course a guy who, like does Robertson, doubted about nearly everything, but contributed to nearly nothing in daily work.
Robertson’s engineer vita was 100 % constructed out Wiki pages.
Thus the moon is rotatingbut not on its own axis.
…as observed from the moon.
It missed out the three dots. Annoying.
Thus the moon is rotating, but not on its own axis.
Thus the moon is rotating on its own axis.
No.
… as observed from the moon.
Ball4 pays no attention to context, or more specifically which comment he is hitting reply to.
Yes.
I’m glad you agree with me about Ball4, RLH.
The ‘yes’ was to your ‘no’ despite others intervening.
Yeah, you need to pay more attention to context, too.
You need to develop some more accurate material instead of your tired ‘ball-on-a-string’ idiocy.
You need to listen to what is actually being discussed at each moment.
At least I am not as wrong so often as you are.
Hush, child.
All we need is the data and we can put an end to this discussion forever.
Ken, the data is in Madhavi Fig. 2(b) – DREMT is simply a denier of what is shown there. DREMT is in long time denial of a lot of science fact.
Thanks for the reference to Madhavi.
Its theory; not data. Where is the data?
https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/?ephemerides#planets
That’s what has been used for this demonstration:
https://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/4709
Ken
” Where is the data? ”
You can choose between
– historical data, like that collected – and, of course, evaluated – by the German astronomer Tobias Mayer between 1748 and 1750:
https://www.e-rara.ch/download/pdf/913790?name=IV%20Abhandlung%20%C3%BCber%20die%20Umw%C3%A4lzung%20des%20Monds%20um%20seine%20Axe%20und%20die%20scheinbare%20Beweg
and
– recent data, based on Lunar Laser Ranging, evaluated (among dozens of examples) by Odile Calamé in 1976
https://tinyurl.com/p5w6aegd
But if you think that with that data “we can put an end to this discussion forever”, then you are very naive.
Denialists are denialists.
Just like the Flatearthists who say
“Don’t show us pictures taken out of the ISS: that’s all FAKED.”
Thanks for the links to articles.
My German is non-existent so I am unable to read Mayer’s paper.
Your other link leads to an involved discussion about libration.
The issue is whether the moon rotates around its own axis or whether the moon is rotating around an external axis.
The discussion becomes obtuse when we start including phenomena such as libration, barycenter, orbital plane, the 3D character of the moon and whether it should be considered a point for the math model, etc. These issues, interesting by themselves, don’t address the central question.
Ken, it’s not obtuse, the moon rotates around its own axis as observed inertially AND the moon is rotating only around an external axis as observed from the moon. The Fig. 2(b) in Madhavi along with her prose explains and shows the kinematics.
Any reader of her course notes will need to have passed the pre-req.s for her course to assure understanding as she writes the text assuming that preparation.
Ken
” Your other link leads to an involved discussion about libration.
The issue is whether the moon rotates around its own axis or whether the moon is rotating around an external axis. ”
That is a typical answer a la Robertson.
*
Apologies for having presented a text in German.
I luckily have no problem with this language (nor with French, my native tongue).
It was a great pleasure for me to understand a lot of Mayer’s genial treatise (you have to be a top crack in spherical trigonometry to grasp the whole stuff).
*
You could at least read some pieces out of the dissertation written by Steven Wepster, a Dutch scientist:
https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/22975/c9.pdf
See section 9.5.1 for a discussion about how Tobias Mayer computed the inclination of Moon’s rotation axis wrt the Ecliptic.
*
I understand very well that this word ‘libration’ is irritating.
The problem is that for all today’s scientists (except a few Serbians venerating Tesla, like Savić, Vujčić, Tomić etc), Moon’s rotation is an evidence “since evah”.
When they talk about ‘libration’, they invariably mean the physical phenomenon, i.e. the tiniest irregularities within the lunar rotation Newton partly was already aware of, three centuries ago.
These irregularities are of two kinds:
– forced, created by gravitational effects arising from Earth, the Sun and the greater gas planets (Jupiter, Saturn);
– free, created by effects we can only suppose – for example, huge asteroid impacts on the Moon.
So tiny they may be, they have an influence on Moon’s ephemeris, i.e. the data used by all lunar missions needing an exact computation of translunar and lunar descent / ascent trajectories.
That has nothing to do with the more known concept of the optical librations visible to us.
*
Nevertheless, what remains unchanged is the fact that Tobias Mayer computed for the Moon in 1750 (!!!!) a rotation period nearly identical to that computed today by using Lunar Laser Ranging data.
No Robertson, no Flynnson, no Clint R, no bill hunter, let alone the Emergency Pseudomoderator can change anything to that.
NONE OF THEM.
Choisissez votre camp, Monsieur Ken…
Bindidon says:
Nevertheless, what remains unchanged is the fact that Tobias Mayer computed for the Moon in 1750 (!!!!) a rotation period nearly identical to that computed today by using Lunar Laser Ranging data.
No Robertson, no Flynnson, no Clint R, no bill hunter, let alone the Emergency Pseudomoderator can change anything to that.
NONE OF THEM.
——————————-
Once again Bindidon plows ahead completely lacking the ability to understand the non-spinner position while blindly erecting strawmen suggesting that the non-spinners are advocating a different rotation rate for the moon. . . . an apparent failure to understand the ramifications of the word synchronous.
hunter
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-876609
What I get from Madhavi is that the moon rotates around an external axis. Its not rotating around its own axis. Ball on string is good analogy.
What you get from Madhavi matters little, Kennui.
A BOS is a very poor model. The Moon is 3D. It wobbles. It moves away from the Earth. The orbit plane is not the same as the ecliptic plane:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#/media/File:Lunar_Orbit_and_Orientation_with_respect_to_the_Ecliptic.svg
The barycenter of the whole system changes over time.
Madhavi’s point is geometric. She underlines that a rotation implies a fixed point. The converse is also true: the existence of a fixed point implies a rotation. That fixed point is also part of the shape.
Kiddo messed up the two last points recently. He sucks at geometry. Don’t be like Kiddo.
Ah yes I see … you too managed to keep going off at a tangent.
Avoiding to go into the stuff is always the better solution for some, isn’t it?
“What I get from Madhavi is that the moon rotates around an external axis. Its not rotating around its own axis. Ball on string is good analogy”
What I get from Madhavi is that a rigid connection is not the same as gravity. Ball on string has nothing to do with gravity.
RLH says:
What I get from Madhavi is that a rigid connection is not the same as gravity. Ball on string has nothing to do with gravity.
=======================
Hmmm, keep in mind that the word ‘rigid’ is not a quantifiable scientific term. Thus if one wants to use rigidity as a measure one has to consider some degree of rigidity if any rigidity is insufficient.
In engineering that is the key objective, namely determining if rigidity is sufficient to hold the project together under expected conditions.
As an individual I would tend to view that sort of like the rigidity of a car I used to commute to work. It is not necessary to be so rigid as to survive any collision, it only has to be rigid enough to consistently travel back and forth from home to the job.
Perhaps you have a another definition that does well retain some semblance of what rigidity is or is not.
It’s really not that hard, Bill:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigid_body
Again, reading instead of pontificating can do wonders.
Rigid as in solid (or flexible as in string) is definitely not the same as gravity.
Gravity can be considered to act on the COG. A connection to the surface (regardless if rigid or flexible) is most definitely not the same thing.
rlh…”Gravity can be considered to act on the COG. A connection to the surface (regardless if rigid or flexible) is most definitely not the same thing”.
***
No one has discovered the source of gravity although some idiots think it is related to imaginary entities like time and space. Not that space is imaginary, I am referring to the coordinate system humans have placed on it as a basis for space-time, which has no existence.
However, since gravity acts in the same manner as electrostatic forces and the field associated with electrical charges, I think it’s safe to presume it is somehow related to the same charges that bond atoms together.
Even though it takes light 8 minutes to get here from the Sun, it appears gravity acts instantly between the Sun and the Earth. That suggests solar gravity is set up as a field through which Earth moves, in other words, it’s always there and does not move out from the Sun toward the Earth, COG to COG.
I would imagine its the same for the Moon moving through Earth’s gravitational field, therefore gravitational forces must act on each portion of the Moon’s surface. We know through tidal action how the Moon acts on the Earth’s oceans. It does not act through a COG but through the entire surface of the oceans upon which it impacts as it moves overhead. It acts the same to the solid surface, offering a better explanation for earthquakes than plate tectonics.
How deeply gravity acts beyond the surface is unknown.
There is a reason for locating the COG at the centre of a uniform rigid body like a sphere. At least, whenever we did problems in dynamics, or statics, we always located a vector at the centre of the rigid body where the COG would be located. It seems obvious, on the face of it, that a field acts equally on either side of the centre and the torques produced cancel out.
It could be done more rigorously using triple integrals but I am not about to attempt that. Too much rust.
rlh…”What I get from Madhavi is that a rigid connection is not the same as gravity. Ball on string has nothing to do with gravity”.
***
Of course it’s not [the same as gravity] but that’s not why the ball on a string has been introduced. The dynamics of the lunar orbit is strictly about a rigid body with only linear momentum being acted on by a gravitational field it is passing through. The gravitational field acts exactly the same on a powered airliner flying at 35,000 feet with constant linear momentum. Neither body has to do anything, they are both gradually re-oriented by the gravitational field into an orbital path.
Note that the airliner keeps the same surface pointed to the Earth without rotating about its COG.
The ball on the string was introduced for only one purpose, to demonstrate that a ball attached to a string can rotate about a person’s head, keeping the same face pointed inward, while not rotating on its own axis. That was the same reasoning behind the wooden horse bolted to the floor of a merry-go-round.
Spinner kept insisting that the ball was still rotating on its own axis even though constrained by the tension of the string on it s surface. It simply cannot rotate locally because the string won’t let it.
The wooden horse was added with emphasis on the bolts holding it to the floor. Spinners still claimed it was rotating about its own axis even though bolted to a surface that prevented it from rotating locally.
BTW…the ball rotated on the string about a person’s head is very much under the influence of gravity. The person activating the ball/string must applying a slight upward motion to prevent the ball falling.
Think of another example, a bucket of water swung about a person’s head. The water in the bucket wants to move in a straight line but the bottom of the bucket and the side prevent it doing so. At the same time, the lower side of the bucket prevents gravity acting on the water to pull it to ground. Therefore the person swinging the bucket must apply a force to counter that, likely by swinging the bucket in an inclined orbit.
Claiming there is no gravitational effect on the ball is akin to claiming there is no gravitational effect on a cannon ball fired from a canon on a cliff, or on a bullet fired from a rifle on a cliff. They will both eventually fall to the surface due to the combined effect of gravity and air resistance. If rotation about the person’s head is slowed enough, the ball/string will begin to droop while still maintaining an orbital path.
“Even though it takes light 8 minutes to get here from the Sun, it appears gravity acts instantly between the Sun and the Earth.”
No it doesn’t. Gravity travels at the speed of light like everything else. Otherwise how would we be able to measure Gravity waves?
“The gravitational field acts exactly the same on a powered airliner flying at 35,000 feet with constant linear momentum. Neither body has to do anything, they are both gradually re-oriented by the gravitational field into an orbital path.”
The 2 situations are NOT the same.
A body orbiting outside of the atmosphere is not subject to the forces that operate inside that atmosphere.
A body outside the atmosphere only has gravity operating on it. That force, whatever it maybe, effectively operates on the Center Of Gravity (hence its name).
As there is no torque available in that operation, the Moon, in this case, orbits without any force to make it change orientation. i.e. ‘face’ Earth.
Any such change of orientation is caused by a local rotation about its own axis once per orbit.
Why is it the the Earth orbits the Sun but it not constrained to ‘face’ it, but the Moon orbits the Earth and is required to do so?
RLH says:
As there is no torque available in that operation, the Moon, in this case, orbits without any force to make it change orientation. i.e. ‘face’ Earth.
================
that is simply untrue for the moon and any other real object. What you are doing is confounding idealistic concepts with reality. It would be true only for a idealistic perfectly round sphere that has zero elasticity or its particles moved in relationship to each other without friction.
Engineers must be conscious of the real world. Theoretical folks tend to let it fly in their imagination.
Willard says:
Again, reading instead of pontificating can do wonders.
==========================
Kinematics is about ‘rigid bodies’ moving about a fixed axis.
And rigid is defined as a body in which deformation is zero or so small it can be neglected.
thus clearly an orbiting moon that has a non-slowing spin would qualify as a rigid body as well would a deformed moon that had no independent spin due to the rigid nature of its shape. In both the cases one can determine that rigidity is sufficient so as non-rigidity can be neglected. However, the only real one in the world is the latter.
So while the ‘rigidity’ argument has appeal it is a ‘relative’ concept that must be quantified to have any weight and it shouldn’t be arbitrarily applied.
USCRN Daily Temperature values for 2021
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uscrn-daily-values.jpg
With apologies to CET https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/had*cet/graphs/Had*CET_act_graphEX.gif : )
rlh…”“Its obvious that a rigid body keeping the same face to an external axis, while in orbit, cannot possibly rotate about its own axis.”
It is obvious that a moving object wrt the fixed stars may or may not rotate about its own axis as it orbits another body. Be that the Moon or the Earth or any other body constrained by gravity to other bodies.
***
The stars have nothing to do with the local rotation/non-rotation of the Moon. The stars as a reference point are for the benefit of the human mind only. The human mind uses the stars as fixed points in space as a reference point to detect motion. If the Moon is not rotating about its axis, it is not rotating about its axis wrt the stars.
BTW…astronomers use the same stars as reference points to define time, based on the Earth’s rotation. Google ‘sidereal time’ and ‘solar time’. It is blatantly obvious that the Earth rotates wrt the stars, we can see it each clear night by watching the Earth sweep past the asterisms. For example, Orion with Sirius nearby, can be seen moving east to west as the Earth rotates west to east. They are not moving in a relative sense in the short term but the Earth is rotating west to east.
Something else is going on. In order for the Moon to rotate about its axis, that is, have an angular velocity about its axis, it requires a momentum about its axis. You and other spinners seem to be stuck on the myth that we always see the same side of the Moon because it is rotating very slowly about its axis in synchronous rotation with its orbit.
Let’s test your myth. Take the spaceship out of your garage and park it up near Polaris, a star claimed to be inline with the Earth’s N-S axis on the north end. You are now looking down on a slightly inclined lunar orbital plane (it’s tilted 5 degrees to the Earth’s equatorial plane).
The Earth’s N-S axis serves as a z-axis to the lunar orbital plane, albeit at a 5 degree angle to it which we can ignore. We are not concerned with specifics we are only concerned with the motion of the lunar near face and its far face wrt the Earth.
You seem to be hung up on COGs and surfaces while dismissing tangent lines. So, we are looking down on an x – y plane as the lunar orbital plane. To the right is the +ve x. For an instant the Moon is located at 3 o’clock with the near side pointed westward along the x-axis at the Earth’s centre.
Now consider the instant at 9 o’clock. The same near side is now pointing along the x axis in an eastward direction toward the Earth’s centre.
Myth buster…if the Moon did turn 360 degrees about its axis per orbit, at 9 o’clock, that near side should now be pointed toward space and the far side toward the Earth’s centre.
It’s not!!! The near face has not rotated at all, rather it has moved in parallel (concentric circles) with the far side and the COG. Points moving along 3 concentric circles can never cross over as required by rotation about the COG.
That’s 2 QEDs to your zero QEDs.
“You seem to be hung up on COGs and surfaces while dismissing tangent lines”
Gravity between 2 bodies effectively operates on the COGs. Tangents are drawn at a surface. Never the 2 shall meet (except at right angles).
rlh…”Gravity between 2 bodies effectively operates on the COGs. Tangents are drawn at a surface. Never the 2 shall meet (except at right angles)”.
***
So, lunar gravity operates on the COG of the water it attracts as tides. Is that why the tidal bulge is directly below the Moon and tapers off on either side of the bulge? Also, does your COG gravitational theory explain the tidal bulge on the opposite side to the Moon?
And a tangent applies only to surfaces??? The slope of a tangent line is defined as the 1st derivative of the equation of the curve to which it is tangent. If the Moon’s COG is moving on an elliptical curve, the COG is on a tangent line to that curve at any instant.
Obviously you missed my use of tangent lines. I had created three (at least) concentric orbits traced out by the COG (the main orbit), the near face and the far face (sub-orbits).
Consider the rings of Saturn. Would you define the entire ring as an orbital path, with width, or is an orbital path to you simply an imaginary line traced out by the Moon’s COG?
I see an infinite number of sub-orbits traced out by each particle on the Moon, each with its own tangent line at any one point, perpendicular to a radial line from Earth’s centre, indicating each particle is moving always in concentric circles. Under such conditions, local orbital rotation is not possible.
Gordon,
“indicating each particle is moving always in concentric circles.”
that’s what indicates local rotation, the particles of the body always moving in concentric circles.
That proves the Moon is rotating on its own local axis,
No, bob, the particles moving in concentric circles means the object is rotating about an external axis and not rotating about an internal axis.
Nope DR EMPTY, see Mahdavi.
I did, that’s how I know I am correct.
You miss-read and miss-interpreted all that was written so you are wrong.
I will assume what you said is directed at bobdroege, RLH, since that applies to him and not to me.
The MOTL is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about an internal axis, as Madhavi confirms, and that is even agreed by many of the "Spinners". They just also think the MOTL can be described as translating in a circle, plus rotating about an internal axis.
“I will assume what you said is directed at bobdroege, RLH, since that applies to him and not to me.”
You are wrong in that also. As you usually are.
The MOTL is rotating about an external axis, and not rotating about an internal axis, as Madhavi confirms, and that is even agreed by many of the "Spinners". They just also think the MOTL can be described as translating in a circle, plus rotating about an internal axis.
Yeah, but that’s just a gif, and the real Moon behaves differently.
Even though, you are still wrong, the MOTL is clearly rotating.
Just zoom in on it and see it rotate, because you have agreed that orbiting and rotating are separate motions, you can zoom in and see it rotating.
Your confusion is infinite, bob. Eternal.
“does your COG gravitational theory explain the tidal bulge on the opposite side to the Moon?”
Yes
“Gravity and inertia act in opposition on the Earths oceans, creating tidal bulges on opposite sites of the planet. On the near side of the Earth (the side facing the moon), the gravitational force of the moon pulls the oceans waters toward it, creating one bulge. On the far side of the Earth, inertia dominates, creating a second bulge.”
“Myth busterif the Moon did turn 360 degrees about its axis per orbit, at 9 oclock, that near side should now be pointed toward space and the far side toward the Earths centre.”
False. As it would then be 1/4 the way round the Earth in its orbit, the ‘near face’ will still point at the Earth. After a complete 360 degree orbit it will have completed its own 360 degree axial rotation.
rlh…”False. As it would then be 1/4 the way round the Earth in its orbit, the near face will still point at the Earth. After a complete 360 degree orbit it will have completed its own 360 degree axial rotation”.
***
If you were on the near face of the Moon, looking at the UK on Earth, you would see the UK move around to the horizon, disappear for hours then re-appear on the other horizon. Yet you claim a similar marker on the lunar surface, always facing the Earth, and viewed from Earth, behaves differently.
Have you actually tried to verify your version is possible, using two coins? Try it. Set up a stationary coin as the Earth and a movable coin as the Moon. Mark the movable coin to indicate the side always facing the earth and try, whichever way you can, to rotate the moving coin through 360 degrees while keeping that mark pointed at the other coin.
There are two possibilities, you can roll the movable coin around the perimeter of the stationary coin, or you can slide it around making the necessary adjustments.
You are suggesting a very slow roll, which would replicate local rotation, so try it. The instant you roll it a fraction of a degree, the mark must leave the perimeter. By half orbit, the mark is pointing away from the stationary coin.
The alternative is to slide the movable coin. If you do that, while adjusting the coin, you can always keep the mark pointed at the centre of the stationary coin. That’s how Earths gravitational field operates on the Moon, it slowly bends its linear path in an orbital path.
It’s too bad you failed to understand my explanation using tangent lines and radial lines. That suggests to me you have never formally studied calculus. You likely got a degree in fine arts or philosophy and transferred the logic you learned to another field without studying calculus formally.
QED #1 using tangent lines proves the Moon cannot rotate on its axis and is performing translation without rotation. Furthermore, the airliner orbiting at 35,000 feet cements my claim.
“Set up a stationary coin as the Earth and a movable coin as the Moon. Mark the movable coin to indicate the side always facing the earth and try, whichever way you can, to rotate the moving coin through 360 degrees while keeping that mark pointed at the other coin.”
It requires me to rotate the moving coin once per ‘orbit’ to keep the mark facing the Earth.
rlh…”It requires me to rotate the moving coin once per orbit to keep the mark facing the Earth”.
***
Not about its axis. What you call rotation is a change of orientation due to the curvilinear translation of the Moon in its orbit.
Once again, an airliner flying at a constant altitude of 35,000 feet around the Equator keeps its under-side facing the Earth, the same as the Moon, and it cannot rotate on any of its axes or it crashes. Yet the airliner goes through the same change of orientation as the Moon.
QED #3
Incredible!
Robertson just finally learned what means ‘wrt the stars’ and soon plays the BIG TEACHER as if he had understood the concept ‘since evah’.
The reality however sounds quite different:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-862251
” Still no scientific rebuttal, maybe NASA will check in with more illusions or obfuscation about rotation wrt stars. ”
At that point on the time axis, it is evident that he still had not understood what that means.
It’s like the Flynnson genius who thinks astronomers would view the Moon ‘from the fixed stars’.
Ah well ah well.
Binny,
Presumably, by “Flynnson” you really mean Swenson. If you do, thank you for acknowledging my genius, although I am too humble to make such a claim myself.
There is a saying that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, so I also thank you for the doubled flattery using “Ah well”, not just once, but twice!
Unfortunately, in English, you may have committed the sin of inadvertently gilding the lily, so to speak.
One “Ah well” is idiomatically expressive, and sufficient for most. Feel free to imitate me as much as you desire. If you believe it makes you appear more intelligent, it does neither of us any harm.
Mike Flynn,
Monochromatic Fantastication,
“Flynnson” refers to you, Mike Flynn.
Ho! Ho! Ho!
binny…”Robertson just finally learned what means wrt the stars ”
***
Is your reading comprehension so poor that you cannot understand that I said, ‘wrt the stars’ has nothing to do with local lunar rotation, that it is due to local angular momentum.
Of course, anyone who can read the statistical garbage produced my Meier, which includes a fictitious centrifugal force, could never understand real physics.
Earlier, bobdroege wrote –
“Swenson,
You don’t know what the fuck you are talking about, I do.
Get a life.”
Unfortunately, bob can’t actually specify what it is that he supposedly knows. He talks about the GHE, but can’t say where it may be observed or measured,
As to bob actually knowing what he is talking about, when I suggested he might care to admit he was was wrong about a statement he made that a single molecule could not have a temperature (regardless of its mass), he wrote –
“Swenson,
Sorry, my bad.
My knowledge of physics is not the problem here.
Find a PhD in physics or Chemistry and ask them, I already have.”
At least he apologised – but of course immediately intimated he was not really apologising! Such is the response of the caught-out climate crackpot. Just another foul mouthed idiot, who can’t even master the art of being gratuitously offensive.
Any fool can misinterpret what they read on the internet, or accept as fact, plausibly presented nonsense! Just look at bobdroege.
Swenson,
The response to the enhance greenhouse effect can be seen in the graph at the top of the page.
Single molecules still don’t have a temperature and Franco is still dead.
b,
Maybe you need to talk to PhDs who know something. Even NASA knows “All objects actually emit radiation if their temperature is greater than absolute zero.”
See the word “all”?
Throw in a few obscenities, if you think it will make you look more authoritative.
Swenson,
Try looking it up.
Or we can continue to trade insults for obsenities.
Your choice.
We know who will come out looking like an idiot.
“Single molecules still dont have a temperature”
So the O2 molecules that Roy measures the radiation from don’t have a temperature. Good to know.
RLH,
An article of faith amongst climate crackpots – neither oxygen nor nitrogen, not radon nor argon can radiate infrared. They cannot have a temperature, because bobdroege the idiot said so.
Now, just wait for bobdroege the idiot to say he really meant something else.
Not terribly bright, is our bob. I’m surprised Witless Wee Willy doesn’t immediately spring to bob’s defence. They both seem to share the same GHE delusion based on rejecting reality, and having a tantrum anytime somebody points this out.
bob wrote molecule and RLH wrote molecules. Back to school for Swenson.
“An article of faith amongst climate crackpots neither oxygen nor nitrogen, not radon nor argon can radiate infrared.”
No, not an ‘article of faith’ — but rather an observation that such gases radiate many orders of magnitude less IR than gases like H2O, CO2, and CH4. If a box of N2 radiates 0.0000001 as much as a similar box of CO2, then for all practical purposes, we call call the radiation from N2 “zero”.
Furthermore, there are strong theoretical reasons why the radiation is so weak.
“They cannot have a temperature, because bobdroege the idiot said so.”
Again, No. What he said is that you cannot define the temperature of a single particle. The concept of “temperature” only makes sense as an average property of a collection of particles.
“bob wrote molecule and RLH wrote molecules”
Are you saying that individually they cannot measure a local to them temperature but collectively over a wider volume they can?
How is that possible?
“The concept of ‘temperature’ only makes sense as an average property of a collection of particles.”
Averaging individual samples to make a collection means that each individual sample has a value as well.
That your tire is elastic does not mean that the atoms of your tire are elastic, dummy. Same for an average salary: JeffB makes a little more than 36K per year!
No wonder you fall for the meteorological fallacy – you fall for its classic version!
The “average kinetic energy” of 300 K gas molecules in a box in a stationary room is less than the “average kinetic energy” of 300 K gas molecules in a box in a jet moving 1000 km/hr. How can that be??
Because temperature is always measured relative to the center of mass of the collection of particles. Both boxes have the same KE in their own frame, relative to their own center of mass.
But …. for a single particle, the COM is always moving with the particle! That means its KE is zero, and its “temperature” is zero!
Only when you have a collection of particles does the concept of “temperature” make sense.
“That your tire is elastic does not mean that the atoms of your tire are elastic”
As the tire is made up at the atoms within it, then the bonds between the atoms in the tire are elastic also.
No-one said the atoms themselves were elastic, although they will internally vibrate according to the temperature of the tire.
Idiot.
“its temperature is zero”.
So individual atoms of O2 cannot produce the wavelengths required to be measured by a satellite, but a whole collection of them can. Sure.
> No-one said the atoms themselves were elastic
Here’s what you said, dummy:
That’s false.
Simpson’s Paradox can’t get you this far.
You are trying to make the bonds between atoms the same as the atoms themselves. Idiot.
Unless you’re willing to admit that atoms enjoy every single property we can observe in the universe, dummy, you’ll have to concede that there are emergent properties.
And it looks like you’re willing to go there.
Atoms are considered differently to the bonds between them. Idiot.
And consciousness is just a matter of atomic bonding.
Sure.
Swenson,
You get high marks for misquoting.
Is not required to have a temperature to emit radiation.
A single molecule or atom can emit radiation.
bob d…”Is not required to have a temperature to emit radiation.
A single molecule or atom can emit radiation”.
***
Not without having a temperature and reducing it’s temperature to radiate EM.
Basic S-B….EM intensity = sigma.T^4.
If a quantum of EM is emitted from an atom, the atom loses KE, which is heat.
Sorry Gordon,
But a molecule or atom can emit radiation without losing any kinetic energy.
rlh…”So the O2 molecules that Roy measures the radiation from dont have a temperature”.
***
Good point. Bob has himself cornered based on a statistical definition of gas temperature offered by Boltzmann and Maxwell. Pretty heady stuff actually, but temperature was defined long before that as a measure of relative heat levels.
The Celsius scale, for example, is based on the freezing point of water as 0C and the boiling point of water as 100C. Each incremental degree between represents a relative level of heat with the calorie (measure of heat) being defined as the amount of heat required required to raise 1cc of water by 1C.
Clausius defined heat as the kinetic energy of atoms and he explained in detail what he meant by that long before the complete atoms was identified with electrons and protons or before Bohr introduced his theory of electrons being confined to quantized energy levels around a nucleus.
If the correct quantum of EM with the correct frequency is absorbed by an electron in an atom the electron rises to a higher energy potential, increasing kinetic energy en route. That rise in KE represents a rise in KE of the entire atom, and as Clausius asserted, heat is the kinetic energy of atoms. If the KE of an atom rises, it has to get hotter.
What you pointed out is further proof. O2 at a certain temperature emits EM in the microwave range with a frequency around 60 Ghz. The particular frequency varies with the temperature of the O2 molecule.
There is no reason, knowing the temperature of a mole of O2 molecules why you could not use Avogadro’s number to find the temperature of an individual O2 molecule.
I imagine with your expertise in statistics you could use Boltzmann’s statistical method to work backwards from the average KE.
You are stuck on stupid Droege. Flip the switch.
Anderson,
Explain to me how I am wrong.
Do more better than call me stupid.
Can you do that?
Or are you the stupid one?
Crash course in adding fluxes , adding temperatures and heating with ice cubes – all in one –
https://youtu.be/hf9x4aYfyCE
Eben
Joseph Postma is a stupid lunatic with no ability to reason. He is a cult leader and that is all he is able to do.
The only thing in the video of value was that their actually are dumber people out there than Postma.
Whoever he was interacting with that said an ice cube could add heat and warm a hotter object does not understand the concept. Joe Postma does not either and he is too fanatic to try and understand.
In his blog the rational intellect attempts reason but as always, Joe is too fanatic to think about what is being said.
https://climateofsophistry.com/2021/09/19/rebranding-the-simulacrum-with-sophistry/#comments
SamMich understands the actual theory and attempts to explain it to Joseph. The end result is always the same. Joseph can’t comprehend the logic and he never will.
Cold ice cannot increase the temperature of a non-heated hot object. No Climate Scientist would say it would.
But in relative terms (one compared to the other). Cold ice surrounding a heated object (one with an external energy source) will result in the heated object reaching a higher temperature than it the surrounding was much colder liquid nitrogen.
But also it shows Joseph Postma (Fanatic that he is) is still far more intelligent than the really stupid Clint R. At least Joseph accepts the radiant heat transfer equation as valid. This blog’s super stupid Clint R is too dumb to understand this equation. He claims I can’t understand links, he is too stupid to grasp basic physics.
Please do not get as stupid as Clint R.
Postma says we are a bunch of psychopathic, robotic, flat-earther, fucking clowns.
And I think I missed a few.
…and that’s not all Postma is right about.
And there’s the difference between heat and work, yeah he nailed that one.
Yeah, and another one that doesn’t understand averages and call it a flat earth model.
Hint: It’s not a flat earth model, the earth is still rather close to round.
…but in treating the situation as though the sun shines continuously 24 hours a day over one surface, at a reduced input, you are indeed treating the Earth as if it were flat.
DR EMPTY,
Except
“but in treating the situation as though the sun shines continuously 24 hours a day over one surface, at a reduced input, you are indeed treating the Earth as if it were flat.”
It’s not treating the Sun as if it is shining 24 hours a day, it is calculating the average amount of sunshine over the total amount of land the Sun shines over.
The Earth is still round and Franco is still dead.
I repeat my previous comment, which refutes your response.
DR EMTPY,
I claim that the Earth is rather round, and not flat.
That refutes your previous argument.
And so does this equation for the surface area of a sphere.
A = 4 pi r^2
Ibid.
Every time I see that energy budget model with flat earth and sun shining 24 hours a day on it it cracks me up, the so called climate scientists actually are the real flat-earthers
The Sun shines on a disk, Eboy.
Suck it up.
Since Willtard fell of the edge of the Earth disk right on his head he got to be this way.
https://i.postimg.cc/pdSW-zvkd/flatearth.jpg
Do you even geometry, Eboy?
Start here:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/#comment-191028
I hope you like 2-box models as much as Kiddo!
It appears Postma knows the difference between their, there, and they’re.
Hear for Norman
Print this out and tape it to your monitor
https://i.postimg.cc/V6nXhm77/there.jpg
Eben
Yes a typo, that does not help Postma’s lunatic fringe beliefs. He is still wrong and still a fanatic. Not nearly as smart as he thinks he is or his unscientific followers.
I do not know your scientific training. I can show you how stupid Joseph Postma is. I am not sure you want to understand it. I hope you at least consider it and think about it. I posted similar material on his blogs (but then he banned me) but he is too fanatic to reason with. He only accepts his narrow and incorrect view.
Eben
Again, please do not be as stupid as Clint R. Reason it out and see.
Actual data used.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_614fe02f763f3.png
This is a clear sunny day in a desert location in summer.
This is the measured value of incoming solar energy that is not reflected away but absorbed by surface.
Eben
The area of a parabola is 2/3(Height)(Base).
If you look at the graph the Height is 800 Watts/m^2. To find total energy from the Solar input in a 24 hour period you would use seconds as the Base unit. 15 hours would equal 54,000 seconds (the base period of solar input for the parabola).
Solar input (24 hours) = 2/3 (800 Joules/second)(54,000 seconds)
Solar input from Sun= 28,800,000 joules of available energy.
If you would spread this energy out for even input for an entire 24 hours it would average 333.3 W/m^2 (86,400 seconds in 24 hours)
This would get you a temperature of 38.57 F or 3.68 C. Quite cold. That is all the solar energy input will get you.
Eben
Now for how the GHE actually works (correctly not Joe Postma version).
https://tinyurl.com/4fmubj4u
This graph has the upwelling IR which would be the energy emitted by the hot surface of the Earth.
Having to break up a longer comment. Something preventing posting.
Eben
Without the GHE the surface emits far more energy than is available from solar input in a 24 hour cycle. Without calculation just eyeball it looks over 500 W/m^2 but the Sun only provides 333 W/m^2 average. If you broke it down to joules you would have something like Solar input 28,800,000 joules of energy in 24 hours with the surface emitting around 43,000,000 joules in the same time period.
The Graph shows the downwelling IR from the atmosphere that will be absorbed by the surface.
This gives you a Heat loss from the surface which, instead of around 500 W/m^2 it is greatly reduced to losing much less HEAT because of the GHE.
https://tinyurl.com/3h7mdntd
With GHE present the surface heat loss (which is the amount of energy lost from emission minus what it regains from the surroundings using the well established radiant heat transfer equation)
https://tinyurl.com/58cwvpz3
So now the 333 W/m^2 solar input is more than what is lost as HEAT from the surface. The surface would get even warmer but other surface heat loss mechanisms act to cool the surface. In wetter regions evaporation and in the desert mostly convection.
It is not a magic source of energy or violation of the second law. It acts as a radiant barrier.
You may not agree but at least think about it, try to see what is being stated.
Useful idiot Norman gets triggered into climate shyster attack and like a brainless automaton retyping once again the fizzix breaking nonsense of flat earth energy model with ground eating back its own heat and adding it up to itself, like everybody didn’t see it 100 times already.
Eben
Quite unfortunate. You are clearly as stupid as Clint R or Gordon Robertson. You are clueless of what the graphs show and have zero ability to understand what is going on so you lash out like a ignorant child covering your lack of knowledge on the topic and believing a Stupid Joseph Postma style attack will cover your stupid thought process.
Just admit, for you own benefit, the ideas are above your head and you cannot understand them. Then you would still be stupid but at least honest about your lack of ability.
norman…”Joseph Postma is a stupid lunatic with no ability to reason”.
***
I think Joe nailed it when he claimed we build greenhouses to do what the atmosphere cannot do.
entropic…” If the moon were rotating about an external axis, but not an internal axis, the gyroscopes on a stationary lander would still record a rate of 13 degrees/day or 0.5 degrees per hour.
***
13 degrees per day is measuring the Moon’s position in it’s orbit. 360 degrees/13(degrees/day) = 27.68 days. If the gyroscope is referenced to the stars, it is measuring an ellipse being carved out among the stars.
On the other hand, if the Moon was rotating about its axis, the reading would be far different. The gyroscope is obviously referenced for the lander in flight, not moving on another body. It would need some advanced relativity built into its memory to adjust for that.
The gyroscope is set up for the lander in free flight where it is independent of the Moon’s motion. Once you land it on the Moon, you would need to tell it that it is now moving on another body at so many radians per second (local rotation). At the same time, that moving body is moving in an Earth orbit, and you’d need to tell the gyroscope that as well.
Otherwise it would give you seriously weird local readings. The minute you took off it would go…whaaaa???? Where am I???
What good would the gyroscope be to a lander sitting on the Moon? If it was sitting on the near face, it would record the motion of the Moon in its Earth orbit. That’s obviously because the lander is sitting on it.
Suppose you had another lander on the opposite face with a gyroscope. Both would show the same 13 degrees per day but the one on the far side would have a different reading based on its location 1 Moon diameter away. Each gyroscope would show each lander moving in concentric circles around the Earth. Hopefully you can see that rules out a local rotation.
Gyroscopes detect rotation relative to the inertial reference frame (colloquially “wrt the fixed stars”).
They do not detect orbital motion.
Which makes most of your last comment meaningless.
“Orbital motion” already involves “rotation wrt the fixed stars” (about an external axis) hence why your gyroscopes will not be able to correctly separate “orbital motion” from “axial rotation” and will thus not settle the issue of whether the moon rotates on its own axis or not.
DR EMPTY,
“Orbital motion already involves rotation wrt the fixed stars (about an external axis)”
Nope, you can’t make up your own definitions of orbital motion and rotation with respect to the fixed stars.
I’m not making up my own definitions.
DR EMPTY,
Hmmmm,
“Obviously I was defining revolution (rotation about an external axis) with no rotation about an internal axis.”
Not your words then?
Yes, my words. The following is not my words, however:
"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."
Here’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
Orbit does not imply a lack of spin.
There are two separate motions:
1) Orbiting.
2) Axial rotation (spin).
If you are going to define one, then of course you do so independent of the other. So if "orbiting" is defined, then it is defined without spin. It wouldn’t make sense to include "spin" in the definition of "orbit".
DR EMPTY,
You are making progress, now follow that through to its logical conclusion.
Than admit you were wrong and that the Moon rotates on its axis.
> If you are going to define one, then of course you do so independent of the other. So if “orbiting” is defined, then it is defined without spin.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
The category of fruits is independent from each fruit’s color, but a banana is still yellow.
You are making progress, bob, now follow that through to its logical conclusion.
Then admit you were wrong and that the moon does not rotate on its own axis.
DR EMPTY,
Now that we agree that orbiting and spinning on an internal axis are separate and independent motions, we can move on.
So use an accepted definition of spinning on an internal axis and we can finally conclude that the Moon indeed spins on an internal axis.
Everybody knows what is meant by internal axis rotation. The key is that it has to be separate from the orbital motion.
Everyone knows that you wrote:
Kiddo.
Want to revise that definition?
DR EMPTY,
“Everybody knows what is meant by internal axis rotation. The key is that it has to be separate from the orbital motion.”
Yes, we have agreed to separate internal axis rotation from orbital motion.
That’s good.
Now we also know everyone agrees that rotation on an internal axis means changing orientation with respect to the fixed stars.
Or it means spinning like a top.
No, bob, internal axis rotation is not measured wrt the fixed stars. It is rotation about an axis that is internal to the object, and it has to be separate from the orbital motion. So it has to be separate from the motion in which the object orbits another, where it keeps one face oriented towards the inside of the orbit. Separate from that motion.
DR EMPTY,
So now you are refusing to agree to what you already have agree upon.
That orbiting and rotation are separate, yet you are still trying to put them together.
” So it has to be separate from the motion in which the object orbits another, where it keeps one face oriented towards the inside of the orbit. Separate from that motion.”
See, you are still putting rotation into orbiting.
So you have gone back on your word.
Keeping one face to the inside of the orbit is not part of orbiting.
Only tidally locked in one to one correspondence does that, all other orbits do not do that.
bob d …”Now that we agree that orbiting and spinning on an internal axis are separate and independent motions, we can move on”.
***
Not so fast, Bob. If local spin, aka angular velocity, = 0, you can still orbit while keeping the same face pointed to the external axis.
“Keeping one face to the inside of the orbit is not part of orbiting”
Yes it is, bob. The “Spinners” think keeping one face oriented towards a fixed star is part of orbiting and the “Non-Spinners” think keeping one face to the inside of the orbit is part of orbiting. Then both groups keep rotation about an internal axis separate from their version of orbiting. Both groups have always argued that orbiting and rotation about an internal axis are two separate motions, bob. The difference lies with “orbiting”. How have you never realised this?
No DR EMPTY,
Keeping the same face towards a distant star is part of rotating on an internal axis, not part of revolving or orbiting.
You keep mashing them together.
A body has to rotate on an internal axis to keep its face pointed towards the inside of the orbit.
How is it that you can’t understand this simple observation?
Pointless talking to you, as always, bob. You do not even understand the argument of your own side, let alone mine.
DR EMPTY,
You think it’s pointless, ha!
Orbiting and rotating are separate.
The Earth orbits the Sun, right?
Does the Earth keep the same face pointed towards the Sun?
That point proves that this statement is wrong.
” So it has to be separate from the motion in which the object orbits another, where it keeps one face oriented towards the inside of the orbit. Separate from that motion.”
Touchdown for team Bob.
I was describing “orbital motion without axial rotation” in that statement, bob. Obviously. F*ck me you are thick.
DR EMPTY,
If you think I am thick, obviously you must pay more attention to what you are posting.
Because it was not obvious you were describing orbital motion without axial rotation, we were discussing orbits.
So where in this post is any mention of orbital motion without axial rotation.
“So it has to be separate from the motion in which the object orbits another, where it keeps one face oriented towards the inside of the orbit. Separate from that motion.”
So right, no mention of orbital motion without axial rotation.
So where in the universe and this orbital motion without axial rotation be observed?
Every tidally-locked moon.
DR EMPTY,
This is what is written just to the left of your precious gif
“This is known as synchronous rotation: the tidally locked body takes just as long to rotate around its own axis as it does to revolve around its partner. ”
That’s what tidally locking means.
It doesn’t mean the tidally locked body is not rotating.
Tidally locked bodies are rotating around their axis.
Chump
bob does tend to get frustrated when he loses an argument.
Entropic man at 3:55 AM
It appears that GR was absent the day his Engineering Dynamics class covered the “study of the motion of the gyroscope.” Assuming he ever studied Engineering and isn’t just a bullshit artist.
“13 degrees per day is measuring the Moon’s position in it’s orbit. “
No! The moon’s position in its elliptical orbit changes at varying rates — higher rates when the moon is closer to the earth and lower when i is farther from the earth.
But the the measured rotation of the moon using any technique is a steady rate. This is the source (well, at least one source) of libration.
“…the measured rotation of the moon…”
…the measured change in orientation of the moon…
Measured from:
1. The Moon.
2. The Earth.
3. The Sun.
4. The fixed stars.
That is the (set of) question(s).
OK, RLH. I await your answers.
The fixed stars move from all measurement points except 4. (Assuming you are on the surface of 1, 2 and 3).
…proving that the moon orbits…
Proving that the moon rotates
Why is the Moon orbiting the Earth different from the Earth orbiting the Sun?
The orbit is the same. It’s just that the Earth is also rotating on its own axis, and the moon is not.
Why?
No idea. You?
Because the Moon is rotating on its axis too. Just like the Earth.
No. I guess you could argue that the moon is tidally locked, hence why it has stopped spinning. Whereas the Earth has a long way to go before it stops spinning.
I know, I know, you will argue that tidal locking means the moon is rotating once on its own axis per orbit, blah blah blah…
I added LOCK to your Master Argument, Kiddo:
(LOCK) The moon is tidally locked, hence why it has stopped spinning.
Tell me if I should remove it.
Willard, I couldn’t care less what you do. Your "master argument" is just a means for you to troll me. You leave out anything important, and include a bunch of snippets taken out of their full context and often re-written completely by you. You then tell me that what you have written is better than I could ever write. About my own arguments. Which you clearly don’t even understand anyway.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
The Master Argument is meant to condense Moon Dragon crap.
Since you’re trolling, no wonder that displeases you.
Please stop trolling.
Stalker, begone.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Nobody’s stalking you, whereas you keep harassing Bob just because he keeps winning against you.
If you were not trolling, you’d have a Master Argument.
You don’t have one.
Please stop trolling.
Begone, stalker.
tim…”The moons position in its elliptical orbit changes at varying rates…”
***
Tim, I have already proved, using tangent lines and radial lines, that the near side, the far side, and the COG are moving along concentric circles, making it impossible for the Moon to rotate about a local axis. You and other spinners have failed to disprove my proof.
I proved it further using an airliner orbiting at 35,000 feet around the Equator. It keeps the same face pointed at the Earth and cannot rotate about any axis or it will crash. Therefore, its orbit is purely translation without rotation, as is the Moon’s orbit.
It is simply not possible for the Moon to keep the same face toward the Earth and rotate about a local axis. Therefore, the gyros are measuring the number of degrees the Moon moves per day in its orbit. That is, while they are sitting on the Moon or moving with it.
The lander is not in orbit when it’s off the lunar surface. It has to fly back to the mother ship.
Gordon,
we have noted that your tangent lines are rotating.
That is enough to disprove your proof.
Try again.
Gordo repeats another fallacy:
As I pointed out last month, those “circles” in your theory must have different radii at Apogee and Perigee. Your claim that the Moon rotates in concentric circles as it orbits the Earth fails to account for these facts. As a result, the rate of rotation about those “circles” changes throughout the orbit. This is impossible without some torque(s) being to either speed up or slow down your rate of “rotation” as the Moon orbits.
So, Gordo, where are those torques?
All Germans now know there is La Nina coming, all except one – the one that keeps trolling this board, what are the odds of that ?
Then again , I predicted he would be the last one to figure out when the La Nina arrive that there is one. except I forgot to archive that post , anybody saved it ?
https://bit.ly/3okJv4D
eben…if the planet starts cooling naturally, the alarmists will go on pretending that was predicted by AGW theory and push for further CO2 reductions in an attempt to slow the cooling.
Of course, Binny will be at the head of the class, in the front row, wearing his short pants and a beanie with a propeller on it.
“if the planet starts cooling naturally,”
The planet is cooling naturally. The proxy data shows a 0.05C/decade cooling trend over the last 5000 years and the natural forcings causing it have not changed.
Unfortunately that has been swamped by the artificial 0.2C/decade warming caused by AGW.
As to what I would do if the planet returned to the natural cooling trend; I would be delighted!
EM,
Proxy data? Natural forcings?
What is wrong with real data, and accepted physical descriptions? What units are used to measure theses stupid “forcings”?
Maybe climate cranks have no real data, so they just make stuff up. Just like they create nonsense definitions for “forcings”, or pretend to measure temperatures in W/m2.
The planet no longer has a molten surface. It has cooled to its present temperature. Deny all you like, but that’s reality.
entropic…”Unfortunately that has been swamped by the artificial 0.2C/decade warming caused by AGW.”
***
Swamped??? Sorry, that warming is actually a re-warming from the Little Ice Age.
Entropic man
“The planet is cooling naturally. The proxy data shows a 0.05C/decade cooling trend over the last 5000 years and the natural forcings causing it have not changed.”
Please explain what are the natural forcings causing Earth surface cooling naturally?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
More and more blue on this animation.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_30day_large.gif
Eben
Thanks again for your stoopid polemic.
Please wake me up when the pic below
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
shows 30 % yellow and 70 % blue…
Your continuous reblogging of Gosselin’s TricksZone
https://bit.ly/3okJv4D
do not impress me at all.
“A transition from ENSO-neutral to La Nia is favored in the next couple of months, with a 70-80% chance of La Nia during the Northern Hemisphere winter 2021-22.”
Told ya, he can’t see it.
I am curious if anyone knows the reason for the different parameters used for determining la nina? If I am not mistaken NOAA uses 3 month average -0.5c threshold, BOM uses 3 month average -0.8c threashold and JPA uses 5 month average -0.5c threshold. So currently NOAA is at 70%, BOM at 50% and JPA at 30% chance of La Nina, because of the different parameters they all could be right.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.shtml
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/outlook/
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
Either way La Nina is headed our way late this year/early next year.
What Dumbdidon keep showing is an odd prediction made differently from everyone else, that prediction goes only five month ahead including the current one,and all of the five month would have to be below their threshold.
The others predict 6-7 month ahead and their classification has to be only three month below their threshold.
That once again show he can only draw straight lines through the sets of numbers but he has no understanding where those numbers come from or what they actually mean.
Billy Bob
gets one +point for asking the right question.
Strange how this year in the USA has been the ‘hottest ever’ but the USCRN has in general been below the 50% percentile (and the mean) more often than not.
USCRN Daily Temperature values for 2021
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uscrn-daily-values.jpg
I have seen the graphic yesterday, that’s a good work.
Thanks for it.
Now, concerning USA vs. USCRN, It is true that the CRN stations are better in both equipment and siting than the rest.
But… when you collect 2.5 degree grid data from CRN and GHCN daily for CONUS + AK, you see that while CRN is present in about 100 cells from 2008 on, GHCN daily reports about 220 cells.
Thus, the question remains: is USCRN really representative for the US?
Or, formulated differently: is a Climate Reference Network automatically a Climate Network?
Is it not interesting to note that while the average of all absolute temperatures collected by CRN shows a negative estimate (linear and quadratic), the average of the GHCN daily temperatures shows a positive trend?
And, if you extract, out of GHCN daily, all available CRN stations, their trend is negative as well, though GHCN daily data is not identical with CRN daily data.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16raLWnXqB6nps-mXfzCIxdHvvY9xyfb8/view
Linear estimates in C /decade
CRN orig: -0.4
CRN subset of Daily CONUS+AK subset: -0.3
Daily CONUS+AK subset: +0.3
Years ago, there were endless debates at WUWT concerning the allegedly bad siting of all US stations, except 71 USHCN stations selected by Watts’ surfacestations.org, and published by NOAA.
The difference between them and all 8000 GHCN daily stations was laughable, except in parts ofr the historical context.
I don’t find the exact comparison; here is that graph comparing the famous 71 with all GHCN daily stations located in… airports:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tbreucKhA5wCgFtPcgKIWGuCiwHe4zCC/view
*
{ Please stop endlessly asking why I use 60 month running means: it is, for such long periods, the best way to present the data.
We are no peer-reviewed scientists here. }
Non USCRN stations in the USA are very random in the data quality they use. As has been mentioned on many occasions as you say.
The accuracy of USCRN stations them selves has never been in question.
If the wider USA sampling does not conform to the lower sampling rate of USCRN then it is the former, not the later, that needs to be called into question.
“Please stop endlessly asking why I use 60 month running means: it is, for such long periods, the best way to present the data.”
You have no scientific reasons for 60 months at all.
At least the 15 year filter I use HAS such a reason being the low point of energy in the 1 to 30 year bracket.
Again:
We are no peer-reviewed scientists here,but no more than humble lay(wo)men.
GET OVER IT!
“humble lay(wo)men” who accept inaccuracy in their measurements. Some of them try to reduce those errors. Others don’t.
As usual, you know everything better…
Where are your scientific proofs that the better but sparse USCRN data is in all cases better?
Show us papers, RLH. Your private meaning is of no interest in this discussion.
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/what-is-a-uscrn-station
Nonsense.
That is NOT a paper about what I mean, RLH!
How’s about
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/297019524.pdf
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/atot/22/7/jtech1715_1.xml
then.
It is a nicely done chart, but I have a couple questions.
1) Is this a straight average of stations or is there any area weighting applied?
2) Are you showing an average of all USCRN stations or is it an average of CONUS stations? Alaska had, by recent standards, a fairly cool 2021 summer.
3) Is there a reason you aren’t showing an anomaly view? This would mitigate any bias introduced by the station mix changing over the record and that bia could be enormous.
The (NOAA dataset) claim was “hottest summer” (June, July, August) on record for CONUS rather than “this year”. 2021 currently ranks only 13th in the NOAA record for year to date.
The margin for “CONUS hottest summer” was very close to 1936, but not particularly close (> 0.30C) to any year in the USCRN record.
1) Straight average. Area weighting would only be of interest if I was trying to obtain the ‘true real temperature’ instead. In any case it would apply equally in all years present so would cancel in this case.
2) Average of all USCRN stations (I have contiguous one too)
3) An anomaly view on data since 2002 is too short to collect it as such (You can compare to either Median or Mean until then).
4) Hottest summer is not present in the data presented either. CONUS is not as accurate as USCRN for this year.
1) Without area weighting then the result is biased to over represent regions with higher station density and it is sensitive to changes in the mix of stations.
2) Since the NOAA claim is for CONUS that plot would clearly be more relevant in the context of your original post.
3) An anomaly baseline can be computed over any period albeit with higher uncertainty over shorter periods. A baseline over the last 15 years or so isn’t ideal, but it’s going to be a lot more informative than a heterogeneous average of absolute temperatures over a time varying set of stations.
4) I have no idea what you mean by “CONUS is not as accurate as USCRN for this year”, one is a geographical boundary and the other is a set of meteorologic monitoring stations some of which are not within CONUS.
1) If I am comparing one set of stations with itself there is no bias present. There is no change in stations used since 2002.
2) Inaccurate data cannot be readily compared to accurate data. Inaccurate data is always suspect and should come with the uncertainties quoted.
3). Take either the median or the mean for your comparison then. I can do that too. Which would you prefer and why?
4) No non USCRN stations are as accurate in measuring temperature as they are. That was the whole point of setting up the USCRN network.
1) Most of the USCRN stations have not been operational since 2002.
2) “CONUS” is an acronym for “Contiguous United States” and is the area containing the “lower 48” states and excluding Alaska and Hawaii. You seem unclear on that.
3) I prefer anomalies because of the well-documented issues resulting from averaging absolute temperatures, especially when the station mix changes over the average.
4) See #2. You implied a comparison with NOAA’s metric for “hottest summer (for CONUS)” and then showed data which is not plausibly comparable. If you don’t wish to make a sensible comparison, that’s your choice, all I can do is point out the issues.
I have the contiguous sub-set of USCRN also – see below.
“This would mitigate any bias introduced by the station mix changing over the record and that bia{s} could be enormous.”
Are you saying that the results would be different if I used only the 138 stations that are continuously present throughout the whole period? I can do that also if you wish
Using a homogeneous set of stations all within the region of interest (CONUS) would be an easy improvement. It doesn’t address the area weighting problem, but my gut expectation is that is a smaller effect than stations coming in and out of the mix.
There is no change in the USCRN stations over the period in question so that is not a matter of concern there.
Shall I upload the monthly data for USCRN, both contiguous and full, then?
It will not help your problems, only make then worse.
Now added the monthly values also
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uscrn-monthly-values.jpg
and the Contiguous sub-set
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uscrn-contiguous-monthly-values.jpg
Updated Daily values as the Min and Max were not being computed correctly.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uscrn-daily-values-1.jpg
and the contiguous sub-set
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uscrn-contiguous-daily-values.jpg
I suppose I could do all the UAH datasets with the same 12 month treatment as well.
1) UAH Global, Land, Sea and combined.
2) UAH NH, Land, Sea and combined.
3) UAH SH, Land, Sea and combined.
etc.
I could even include UAH USA48 and USA49 as well.
Not surprising.
The graphic mostly shows the Northern Hemisphere which is moving from Summer into Autumn.
If you are talking about
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uscrn-daily-values.jpg
then it shows the whole of the year to date, not purely the Autumn.
No, this one.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_30day_large.gif
That’s the tropics and the Northern Hemisphere for the last four weeks.
And of course it’s cooling.
I also notice that it is temperatures at a height of 5km. Don’t the ENSO forecasts use sea surface temperatures?
I’m not clear what your message was here.
5km temperatures are meaningless for ENSO and the seasonal cooling swamps any supposed long term cooling trend.
Perhaps you should get into the habit of describing the message you intend your links to convey.
5km is the horizontal grid size, not the height.
And it is not that that Richard Whybray was referring to.
Specular Reflection and Diffuse Reflection
“An object can have both diffuse and specular reflection. Most automotive paint finish is specular, but it also has a diffuse reflection. The surface does not perfectly reflect all incoming light at the same angle as a mirror does. Ocean surface has ripples, and thus cannot be perfectly specular. Sunglint is the result of specular reflection on the ocean’s surface. It is only visible at a sufficient height where the local variation of the ocean’s surface is small enough compared to the height of the observer.”
https://flatearth.ws/reflection
Ever wonder why Joe won the election and he failed horribly all the other times he tried?
Joe is a lot more richer than the other times.
9M might be a tad less that MikeB’s 55B, gb:
https://www.businessinsider.com/11-of-the-richest-us-presidential-candidates-in-history-2019-7
Are you saying that money can buy an election in the USA? Talk about banana republics.
What is the sense of posting about politics on this blog?
Even the dumbest discussions about Moon’s spin appear less unscientific than what you write here.
binny…”What is the sense of posting about politics on this blog?”
***
It’s pertinent to the discussion on AGW. Trumps had sense in that direction, since he understood AGW is largely bs. Had he won, the US would have taken an entirely different direction on global warming policy. A more sensible approach.
But, never mind, when he wins in 2024, he can reverse the idiotic policies put in place by Biden.
gbaikie…”Ever wonder why Joe won the election…”
***
Nope. It’s obvious he and his people cheated. For one, they passed into law, just before the election, a mail-in vote under the pretext of covid. That allowed them to fiddle the election computer programs to win key states.
Second, the night of the election, Trump was ahead of him in Pennsylvania by about 600,000 votes. Next morning, Biden was ahead.
He ‘cheated’ in such a way that no court in the USA has been able to prove. Ever. So either he is very smart or he didn’t do it at all.
“Nope. Its obvious he and his people cheated.”
Politicians have less morality than most murderers and thieves- and longer they are in office the worse it gets.
Joe is old and been a pol all his life.
One could say, murderers and thieves, cheat. But it’s more useful to say that they are mostly stupid.
Stupid, brain dead, evil, uncaring, racist, or uneducated, all work to accurately describe pols. And intelligent, thoughtful, good, concerned, discerning or educated, don’t describe pols.
Hitler was not a genius.
But he counts as a politician.
Hitler didn’t do much falling, he was mindless and immoral from the start. Hitler was an incompetent artist- his artwork was bad as Hunter Biden’s “art”.
Hitler was mostly educated from the corrupt and idiotic German army- Hitler’s best years.
Joe was simply a politician who was probably helped a lot by his wife. Politicians are generally helped a lot from the spouses. Even abysmally dumb spouses are quite helpful to politicians.
If you imagine Judges are better than politicians, they generally aren’t much different- but tend to have more education, they like college professors with tenure.
And lawyers as group tend to be better people than Pols or Judges.
The failure of any nation is related to it’s people. Germans were bad people. And there has not been “much” improvement over the decades, but being slapped in the face, seemed to help the most.
Don’t bet against America, is still a bad bet.
rlh…”He cheated in such a way that no court in the USA has been able to prove. Ever. So either he is very smart or he didnt do it at all”.
***
US courts work in a very different way than courts in the UK. Many US judges have political affiliations and that’s what Trump faced in his preliminary complaints of election irregularities. Democratic-based judges simply refused to hear evidence.
What surprised me was the US Supreme Court. It had been rumoured they would refuse to hear complaints since they did not want to be seen as influencing the outcome of an election. That’s exactly what they did, rather than hear evidence of impropriety they sat on their hands and refused to hear anything.
There was good evidence of irregularities. In one case, a US military intelligence expert complained about an unknown person carrying a bag of USB thumb drives into a computer area and uploading them onto the computer. When he asked an official to investigate, his complaint was rejected.
In other cases, Republican scrutineers, who had a right to observe vote counting were excluded. After complaints were lodged they were allowed to watch from a distance but too far away to see exactly what was happening.
–What surprised me was the US Supreme Court.–
Not surprising.
This a State matter, not a federal matter.
People are sovereign in terms of their State in regards to Fed govt. The Fed is supreme in terms of human rights of any US citizen {anywhere}- they can override or bypass any State in that regard.
And supreme courts {any of the 50 of them} needs a case to be brought to them, and they can decide not to take the case. And they not take a case if it involves political matters- mostly if involves balance of power.
Or this could a State Supreme Court matter [which could then might be brought the Federal US Supreme Court].
You “could be” surprised by various State Supreme courts inaction.
Or said differently if US Supreme Court decided on anything on this matter the State Supreme Court or more powerfully, the States Congresses could nullify the decision.
But some case may eventually {years} be brought to US Supreme Court- then could have some effect upon future elections.
US has number of problems, the right to speedy trial is one, and the confidence in election is another. It up to the republic of states to solve this lack confidence in elections.
“Nov 09, 2020 In 2021, Republicans will have full control of the legislative and executive branch in 23 states. Democrats will have full control of the legislative and executive branch in 15 states. Republicans have full control of the legislative branch in 30 states.”
I blame the Republicans.
Or Republicans are said to be stupid, and Dems are evil.
And so, there not much discernable difference.
And every day, Joe Biden becomes increasingly unpopular the more I like Joe.
Of course what important is does NASA explore the Moon.
So far I am happy with new NASA administer. But it’s likely, I will be disappointed {I am just too optimistic}.
https://www.icij.org/investigations/pandora-papers/about-pandora-papers-leak-dataset/
related.
Under construction, hence subject to (minor) modifications
Merging objects/methods for the specific processing of USCRN hourly data with objects/methods for the generic processing of anomalies, area and latitude weighting
Moving from the absolute CRN temperatures
https://drive.google.com/file/d/11ZoqOljZDzETkMDzITuirU4E8AuXWh5Z/view
to anomalies (aka departures with removed annual cycle), wrt the mean of 2016-2020:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfJM5XjD6Rm7THgMXMJw05xelfKERO0x/view
The difference is, to say the least, visible.
The negative trends for the absolute temperatures have been replaced by positive trends for the anomalies: from -0.40 to + 0.24
C / decade.
This is nothing unusual, as it is due to the fact that
– while absolute NH/SH series nearly always have their maximum/minimum in July/August and their minimum/maximum in January/February
– NH anomalies computed wrt a given reference period have their maxima/minima in those months in which the difference between the month and his mean over the period is the greatest / the smallest.
*
It should be noted that before 2006, CRN stations are, with far below 100 active units, not very representative of US’ climate:
Year Stns Cells
2002 25 17
2003 44 34
2004 71 57
2005 79 65
2006 87 72
2007 106 88
In fact, when comparing CRN with all other series, we should start with… 2007.
Using mean, medians or modes on hourly data without any qualification shows you do not understand the statistics involved. Ever thought what U shaped distributions do to the statistics?
Using them on monthly data is problematic enough.
Have you seen the unequal distributions? Think a vertical slice though each month on
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uscrn-monthly-values.jpg
Look at the fat tailed lower end distribution. That is significant right there.
Shall I repeat the exercise with UAH monthly data for Usa48?
Mark B
You are absolutely right concerning anomalies being better than absolute values.
This is clearly demonstrated by a look at
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfJM5XjD6Rm7THgMXMJw05xelfKERO0x/view
in which you see what happened in February 2021 much better than in any chart based on absolute values.
This extreme drop in USCRN happened in many CONUS+AK places, but the lowest anomalies (and, somewhat unusually, the absolute temperatures) were recorded in the northernmost AK stations (Ivotuk, Dead Horse, Toolik Lake).
*
And you are right as well with your request for area weighting, even if this plays a minor role in USCRN, due to the extremely sparse distribution (138 stations) compared with USHCN (over 600 for the CRN period) or GHCN daily (over 8000).
We can see that in GHCN daily, where the biggest station population is, somewhere in Northeast CONUS, above 300!
*
The lack of USCRN stations before 2007 is simply incredible.
You can see Feb this year quite clearly on these charts.
All stations
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uscrn-daily-values-1.jpg
Lower 48
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uscrn-contiguous-daily-values.jpg
All stations
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uscrn-monthly-values.jpg
Lower 48
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uscrn-contiguous-monthly-values.jpg
Don’t worry about sparse data. I am told that we can krige over 100s of kilometers : )
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-78999-6_29
Earlier, RLH wrote –
“Why is the Moon orbiting the Earth different from the Earth orbiting the Sun?”
Because the Sun appears to rise and set when viewed from the Earth orbiting it. This is because the Earth rotates on its axis.
On the other hand, the Earth does not appear to rise and set when viewed from the Moon orbiting it. This is because the Moon does not rotate on its axis.
Unless RLH has something better?
So it’s a complete illusion that the Moon waxes and wanes from Full to New over a month with the Sun rising and setting on its ‘front’ face. How does it do that without rotating on its axis wrt the Sun?
Earth has day and night. The Moon does also (just longer). Because both are rotating on their own axis.
RLH,
Not at all. You compared the view of the Sun from the Earth which orbits it to the view of the Earth from the Moon which orbits the Earth, similarly to the Earth which orbits the Sun.
Like for like.
You are talking about the view from Earth looking at a Moon illuminated by the Sun. Completely different, isn’t it?
The Earth viewed from the Sun (the body which it orbits) will be seen to be rotating.
The Moon viewed from the Earth (the body which it orbits) is seen not to be rotating.
If you must put words in my mouth to create a diversion, maybe you could use mine, by quoting me.
How hard could it be?
Is the Earth orbiting the Sun? Yes.
Is the Moon orbiting the Earth? Yes.
Is the Moon orbiting the Sun? Yes.
With me so far?
https://www.wired.com/2012/12/does-the-moon-orbit-the-sun-or-the-earth/
“Does the moon orbit the Sun? I would say yes. The interaction between the Sun and the moon has a greater magnitude than that of the moon-Earth interaction. The moon moves around the Sun at the same time it moves around the Earth. Perhaps the best answer is to say the the moon interacts with both the Earth and the Sun at the same time. This is what we call “physics”. I don’t think you could say that the moon just orbits the Earth.”
RLH,
You wrote –
“Is the Moon orbiting the Sun? Yes.” No, it isn’t. Otherwise, the Sun would be at the focus of the ellipse which Newton proved to be path which an orbiting body must follow. But of course, it isn’t.
The Earth falls toward the Sun continuously.
The Moon falls toward the Earth continuously.
The force of gravity exerted by the Earth on the Moon is far greater than that exerted by the Sun. Otherwise, the Moon would not be a satellite of the Earth, with the Earth at one focus of the orbital ellipse.
Feel free to play semantic games. If you think I have erred (unlikely but possible), you could always quote me exactly, and provide some facts to support your assertions. Hell will probably freeze over before this happens.
Swenson,
I thinky you are wrongy on that one
https://www.toppr.com/ask/en-us/question/the-ratio-ofthe-gravitational-pull-ofthe-moon-to-that-ofthe-earth-is/
bobdroege,
You didn’t understand your source at all, did you? Have another look at the equation, and try and convince yourself that its author knows the difference between division and multiplication!
Quite apart from that, knowing that the mass of the Earth is about 81 times that of the Moon, and that the Sun is equidistant from both on average, might lead anyone to think that you ignorant, gullible, an idiot, intellectually defective, or all of the above.
Keep at it, dummy. You have to get lucky sometime.
“Is the Moon orbiting the Sun? Yes.” No, it isn’t.”
Actually the barycenter of the Moon/Earth IS orbiting the Sun. Therefore both the Moon and the Earth ARE orbiting the Sun as a pair.
Swenson,
You just have to do the calculations
F = G * Msun * M moon / (sun to moon distance)^2
F = G * Mearth * M moon / (earth to moon distance)^2
G and the mass of the Moon drop out, so you get the ratio of the Sun’s pull on the Moon to the Earth’s pull on the Moon as
Ratio = Msun / ( sun to moon distance) ^ 2
———————————–
Mearth / (earth to moon distance) ^2
Maybe you can take it from there
RLH says:
September 25, 2021 at 4:10 PM
So its a complete illusion that the Moon waxes and wanes from Full to New over a month with the Sun rising and setting on its front face. How does it do that without rotating on its axis wrt the Sun?
——————————————-
You got this one wrong , if the moon did not spin it would still wax and wane over a month just the same,
the difference would be the lunar day would be as long as Earth year
If the Moon did not spin (i.e. the same face pointed to a fixed star all the time) you would be correct in the lunar day being a year long.
However it rotates on its axis once every 27 days or so, hence what we see.
rlh…”So its a complete illusion that the Moon waxes and wanes from Full to New over a month with the Sun rising and setting on its front face. How does it do that without rotating on its axis wrt the Sun?”
The Sun does not rise and set. It sits there in a relative sense and the Earth moves around it. It is Earth’s rotation that creates the illusion of rising and setting.
The Moon is in orbit about the Earth in an orbital plane that is inclined 5 degrees to the Earth-Sun orbital plane. When the Moon is in the portion of the lunar orbit opposite the Sun, it is fully lit by the Sun. You can see the same effect in the Vancouver, Canada area where Jupiter is currently brilliantly lit by the Sun in the Eastern sky, and remains lit well across into the western sky.
Remember, we can usually only see the Moon at night, although it can be seen at times during the day. Therefore we are only seeing parts of its orbital position at a time. However, the Earth rotates 27+ times per lunar orbit, so we can see the Moon portion by portion each night, albeit in different orbital positions.
The fact that we see only one face of the Moon each night we can see it proves it is not rotating locally. Each time we rotate on Earth, we always come back to the same old face.
As the Moon ‘appears’ to moves from the eastern sky into the western sky, solar light illuminates only a portion of the lunar orb.
Actually the barycenter of the Moon/Earth IS orbiting the Sun. Therefore both the Moon and the Earth ARE orbiting the Sun as a pair.
For the gullible Coolistas, I strongly recommend to compare the pictures visible here
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/09/25/la-nina-globe-expected-to-continue-cooling-into-next-year-extending-cooling-streak-to-7-years/
with those visible here
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/htmls/glbT2me3Sea.html
When you look at a graph posted by TricksZone, it is best to look at its origin.
That helps in getting the currently valid ‘initial conditions’.
*
I very good remember the La Nina episode in 2010-12, and how it influenced Europe.
Our weather conditions at that time were way, way, way away from what you see here:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/euT2mMonInd3.gif
Don’t try to kid me, people.
Here comes Baghdad Bobindidon again
https://i.postimg.cc/Ls15FT07/Baghdadidon.jpg
Are you saying that there won’t be a La Nina late this year/early next year?
As usual, my words are distorted until nothing remains.
No difference between Moon spin denialists and the Enen/RLH pair.
I never said there wouldn’t be any La Nina, you two Dumbies.
READ WHAT I WROTE, and stop insinuating your plain nonsense.
So there WILL be a La Nina later this year/early next year, its just you don’t want to say so directly.
Any predictions on how deep it will be?
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/htmls/glbT2me3Sea.html
More I can’t say: because I am, as opposed to you, no worldwide renowned climate specialist.
No you are an arrogant twat. That much does not change.
test
Polo.
Earlier, Norman wrote (in part) –
“Solar input from Sun= 28,800,000 joules of available energy.
If you would spread this energy out for even input for an entire 24 hours it would average 333.3 W/m^2 (86,400 seconds in 24 hours)
This would get you a temperature of 38.57 F or 3.68 C. Quite cold. That is all the solar energy input will get you.”
Norman demonstrates the typical climate crackpot grasp of reality.
Direct sunlight, in reality, can produce surface temperatures of almost 90 C. Quite impossible, according to Norman – after all, the theoretical average is only some 4 C, so the GHE must provide 86 C of heating if 90 C is recorded!
But wait – there’s more! Apparently, the “back radiation” of Trenberth et.al. Is also 333 W/m2! A miraculous coincidence! So now we have the idiot Norman claiming that an object with a temperature of 3.68 C can heat itself (or anything hotter), to a maximum of 90 C!
Is Norman really, really, stupid, or just another delusional climate crank?
Swenson
You are neither smart enough or know enough physics to have any attempt to understand anything anyone says on this blog. You just pour out your mush mind comments for reasons only known to you.
In the graphs, if you had any reasoning ability (you don’t and appear you never will possess logic or rational thought) you can see that the IR emitted (measured value) from Earth’s surface removes far more energy than what is available with solar input.
If you had any math skills (which you don’t) you could figure it out yourself from each graph posted.
As it goes you will not do this because you are not able to. As it stands you will not be able to logically think on what is going on.
Your very point proves the GHE. The solar input of 800 W/m^2 at peek (in graphs) if continuous would only be able to warm the surface to 71.45 C. The GHE reduces the amount of heat the surface loses allowing it to reach higher temperatures.
rlh…”Does the moon orbit the Sun?”
***
Let’s put it this way…if Earth’s gravitational field was suddenly turned off, would the Moon continue to orbit the Sun?
No. The Moon has no momentum about the Sun. The Moon has only linear momentum and if Earth’s gravity was turned off, it would continue in a straight line tangential to its current orbit.
If the Moon was moving toward the Sun, it would likely be captured by solar gravity and it would be in trouble since it would be accelerated toward the Sun. It would lack the momentum and direction to go into orbit about the Sun. If it was moving away from the Sun, it would escape solar gravity and end up who knows where?
Actually the barycenter of the Moon/Earth IS orbiting the Sun. Therefore both the Moon and the Earth ARE orbiting the Sun as a pair.
RLH,
Think about it.
The barycentre is not orbiting the Sun. The Earth is – continuously falling towards the Sun as Newton figured.
I feel you are perilously close to accepting reality! Resist with all your might! Alternatively, accept the Borg dictum – “Resistance is futile! All your base belong to us!”
Actually, I made that up – partly. As to the barycentre thing, not so much.
“The barycentre is not orbiting the Sun”
Really? As the barycentre is only the combination of the masses of the Earth and the Moon as they orbit each other, how is that virtual point not orbiting the Sun?
RLH,
Well, if you wish to be pedantic, you might consider the barycentre of the Sun, Moon, and Earth. And then the interactions with the rest of the planets, not to mention the rest of the universe.
I confess to oversimplification. Orbits are in general, chaotic.
Feel free to calculate as many orbits of as many bodies as you like.
However, from the Moon, the Earth is not observed to rise or set (in any substantial sense). Therefore, in relation to the Earth, the Moon does not rotate about its axis, for if it did, the Earth could be viewed from all parts of the Moon.
As to calculating orbits in general, as far as I am aware, no general solution exists for even three bodies acting on each other. Chaos rules!
“Well, if you wish to be pedantic, you might consider the barycentre of the Sun, Moon, and Earth.”
OK. So the Sun orbits a barycenter mainly governed by Jupiter and Saturn. The Earth/Moon barycenter orbits that too.
So what is that makes the Moon face the Earth in all this dance?
“Therefore, in relation to the Earth, the Moon does not rotate about its axis, for if it did, the Earth could be viewed from all parts of the Moon.”
Wrong.
So what is that makes the Moon face the Earth in all this dance?
Gravitational pull between earth and moon. Moon is tidally locked.
Same as ball on string. Gravity is the string.
Moon rotates only around an external axis at the barycenter of its orbit. The barycenter is the gravitational center of an earth-moon binary system.
Sun exerts influence only on earth-moon. Moon does not orbit the sun; its the earth-moon system that orbits the sun. You cannot exclude earth in this analysis.
“Same as ball on string. Gravity is the string.”
As I have said (along with many others) gravity operates on the COG (i.e. the center), whilst a string is attached to the surface.
Not the same thing at all.
“Moon rotates only around an external axis at the barycenter of its orbit”
Why? When the Earth also in an orbit round the Sun does not do so.
Earth is influenced by barycenter with moon. Tides and tectonic plates. But earth is too large for moon to pull earth out of its orbit … same as ball on string with child at other end of the string; the ball isn’t exerting enough force on the child to make it wobble. Make the ball bigger … like a shot put … child will wobble.
The Earth in its orbit round its barycenter with the Sun, is also rotating about its own axis, once every 24 hours. So why is the Moon, which is also orbiting its barycenter with the Sun, not doing the same thing? Rotating about its own axis that is. Once every 27 days.
After all the barycenter between the Earth and the Moon is orbiting the Sun isn’t it. Once a year.
So why is the Moon, which is also orbiting its barycenter with the Sun, not doing the same thing? Rotating about its own axis that is.
Because it is tidally locked. The only rotation the moon has is around the external axis.
Earth is not tidally locked; its rotating around its axis every 23h 56m.
“The only rotation the moon has is around the external axis.”
Wrong. It rotates on its own axis once per orbit of the Earth.
The Moon is not physically attached to anything else, like with a rod or a string, so it CANNOT rotate about an external axis.
It can revolve in an orbit by using gravity however.
RLH, objects do not need to be physically attached to rotate about an external axis.
Wrong. That could only apply if you considered gravity to be the same as a physical connection. It isn’t.
No, I am not wrong. You are. Rotation about an external axis requires no physical attachment for the object of any kind. The axis of rotation need not go through the body of the object at all.
Worryingly Wee Will Willard wrote earlier –
“The Sun shines on a disk, Eboy.
Suck it up.”
I’m sure it does, if you hold a disk normal to the rays of the Sun.
If Wonky Wee Willy really thinks the Earth is a disk, like Trenberth and his crowd of bumbling buffoons, Ill have some of what he’s drinking, thanks.
At least when I sober up, Ill accept reality again. As for Wee Willy . . .
Mike Flynn,
Multiprocessing Fanaticism,
Kevin’s diagram is unrelated to the division-by-four.
Here’s a little video explaining the geometrical fact:
https://youtu.be/GNcFjFmqEc8
Even you could understand it!
Oh! Oh! Oh!
1. Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.earth
So = 1.361 W/m (So is the Solar constant)
S (W/m) is the planet’s solar flux. For Earth S = So
Earths albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earths surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earths axial spin
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earths surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Earths Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal *1rotations/day*1 cal/gr*oC)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = [ 0,47(1-0,306)1.361 W/m(150*1*1)∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ ]∕ ⁴ =
Τmean.earth = ( 6.854.905.906,50 )∕ ⁴ = 287,74 K
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
And we compare it with the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K, measured by satellites.
These two temperatures, the calculated one, and the measured by satellites are almost identical.
Conclusions:
The planet mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet….Tmean…Tsat.mean
Mercury…325,83 K…340 K
Earth…..287,74 K…288 K
Moon……223,35 Κ…220 Κ
Mars……213,21 K…210 K
Te.correct vs Tsat.mean comparison table
Planet….Te……Te.correct….Tmean…Tsat.mean
Mercury….439,6 K…364 K……325,83 K…340 K
Earth……255 K…..210 K……287,74 K…288 K
Moon……270,4 Κ….224 K……223,35 Κ…220 Κ
Mars…..209,91 K….174 K……213,21 K…210 K
The 288 K 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earths atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earths surface.
There is NO +33C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
For those of you who think that ‘cosine weighting is the most important thing eva’, I hate to disillusion you but it’s simply not true.
That would be like saying that everything ‘averages to 0’ neatly at the Equinox’s. Which it clearly does not.
The average temperature at a given lat/long during a day and its gain/loss over the year is dominated by solar spherical geometries not Earth bound ones.
That is why the Summer/Winter cycle has more effect than the Day/Night one does.
Daily temperatures are governed by 2 things (well if we assume clear sky (i.e. no clouds), no RH, no rain and no wind – but, hey, you have to start somewhere).
The first is the solar radiation input which is a slice out the Sun’s elliptical orbit as it interacts with the horizon and the ground.
The second is the daily output radiation which is governed by Kelvin, the temperature and something that approximates over the range in question to a downwards sloping straight line.
Inside the tropics the yearly cycle is not that interesting. Spring, Summer, Autumn and Winter all being nearly the same. Inside the Arctic and Antarctic circles the first component is not present for at least part of the year.
In-between things get interesting to say the least.
Robertson shows with his nonsense…
” Of course, anyone who can read the statistical garbage produced my Meier, which includes a fictitious centrifugal force, could never understand real physics. ”
… once again that he is not just a pretentious and ignorant braggart who understands nothing of Mayer’s work, although it has been explained to him many times.
This incredible sentence moreover also shows once again that he is always ready to distort, discredit, denigrate and lie about anything that does not fit into what he invents day after day.
*
Robertson never did read anything out of Mayer’s work: that is evident for anybody who read Mayer’s 130 pages long treatise from beginning till end.
I have often shown a link to a chapter in the English dissertation of the Dutch scientist Steven Wepster:
https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/22975/c9.pdf
In the chapter, you see in section 9.5.1 how Mayer uses spherical trigonometry to compute the inclination of Moon’s polar axis.
In section 9.5.2, Wepster explains how Mayer managed to solve a system of 27 equations with three unknown variables, originating from his observations of the lunar crater Manilius.
Anybody able and willing to carefully read that section immediately understands what Mayer did, and above all, that it had NOTHING to do with the alleged ‘statistical garbage’ brazenly claimed by the dumb ignoramus (nick)named Robertson.
*
And of course, Robertson’s second brazen claim about “a fictitious centrifugal force”, allegedly included in that “garbage”, very probably has only one source: excessive alcohol, hashish or crack use.
Simply because nowhere in Mayer’s treatise will you find any reference to such a force, except in a section where he uses Newton’s laws of gravity to show that the shape of the Moon has sufficient sphericity to allow the use of spherical trigonometry which, in case of Moon’s excessive oblateness, would have lead to fundamental flaws.
Unlike Lagrange and Laplace, who generalized Mayer’s work by using second order differential equations of motion, Mayer’s computations were 100 % based on spherical trigonometry.
*
Yeah: that’s Robertson, the pseudo-engineer.
*
But… all of these remarks apply to the person (nick)named ‘bill hunter’ as well, who manifestly also couldn’t even read and understand Wepster’s English properly.
Ooops?! Comment totally misplaced.
Will be replaced tomorrow by another one.
Gordo keeps repeating that using tangent lines and radial lines, that the near side, the far side, and the COG are moving along concentric circles, making it impossible for the Moon to rotate about a local axis.
Here’s a simple refutation. Take his favorite two pennies example, with a small mark on each of their rims. Call them C1 and C2.
Put C1 in the middle of a table. Move C2 around it so that its mark always faces C1. Do not move C1.
Congratulations! You have spun an object while moving in concentric circle around another one!
You have either:
1) Rotated C2 around an external axis in the center of C1 without rotating C2 about its own internal axis.
2) Translated C2 around C1 whilst rotating C2 on its own internal axis.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
C2 can’t orbit around C1 and keep its mark faced to C1 without spinning.
Try it.
That’s what the CSAtruther dude did not want to show you.
So you are going with 2). No surprises there.
But 2) only applies to the moon if "orbital motion without axial rotation" is motion as per the "moon on the right".
You won’t understand. Never mind.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
Following through Gordo’s demonstration properly proves that your (1) is geometrically impossible. Hence why you switch to pseudo-physics based on silly definition games.
Silly definition games can only improve the Moon Dragon Master Argument. At least as long as you try to be consistent. We just saw that you have a problem with that.
"Following through Gordo’s demonstration properly proves that your (1) is geometrically impossible."
Absolutely not, Willard. It is an equivalent description to 2).
If there were a string or rod connecting C1 to C2 you could more smoothly rotate C2 about the external axis in the center of C1, but the description still applies no matter how you have to manipulate C2.
1) is equivalent to 2).
“If there were a string or rod connecting C1 to C2 you could more smoothly rotate C2 about the external axis in the center of C1”
If C1 and C2 are connected together by a a string or rod then the axis is an internal one for the whole body, C1C2. Not an external one as claimed.
The axis is external to C2, the body in question…and whether it is connected by a rod or string or not connected by a rod or string, the description 1) still applies.
But you described C2 as being only part of C1C2. Once you connect C1 and C2 together you have a single whole C1C2 made up of 2 parts, not 2 individual parts on their own.
> The axis is external to C2
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
As you move C2 around C1, you need to spin C2 a bit so that the mark on its rim faces C1.
You know what “spin” means, right?
You are picking nits whilst the point flies over your head. If you want to consider C1 and C2 to be one single whole, when connected, then go ahead. The axis that the C2 part of the body is rotating about is external to that C2 part of the body. Either way, it moves the same as if you disconnected the rod or string and moved C2 about C1 whilst keeping the mark always facing C1.
And an axis of rotation need not go through the body that is rotating at all. I only include connections to make the point about external axis rotation more understandable.
"As you move C2 around C1, you need to spin C2 a bit so that the mark on its rim faces C1."
Yes, Willard, that is a description of 2).
And 1) is still equivalent to 2). I know this is difficult for you to understand. Nobody expects very much of you, though. So don’t worry.
“If you want to consider C1 and C2 to be one single whole, when connected, then go ahead. The axis that the C2 part of the body is rotating about is external to that C2 part of the body.”
It is an axis that is contained within the C1C2 body however. i.e. an internal axis to the C1C2 combined unit.
> If you want to consider C1 and C2 to be one single whole
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
I isolated C2’s motion.
That C2 needs to spin to preserve its orientation toward C1 is far from being a nit. It’s, like, a refutation of Gordo’s trick. His “demonstration” turns against Moon Dragon cranks like you.
At this point, y’all have no geometrical leg to stand on.
You should run away with your pseudo-physics. Tim and Eric will have a field day with you.
Good bye.
As I said, if you want to consider it to be one single whole, the axis is still external to the C2 part of the body. The C2 part of the body’s particles are moving in concentric circles about the C1 part of the body. Makes absolutely no difference to the point being made. The C2 part of the body is not rotating about an axis going through its center, it is rotating about an axis going through the C1 part of the body. That is the 1) description.
Willard, Tim agrees with me about description 1) and 2). As does my stalker. So I very much doubt Tim will be "having a field day" over something he agrees with me on.
It’s you that doesn’t understand, as usual.
> As I said
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
You’re deflecting from my main point. That point is pretty basic. Gordo claims that it’s *impossible* for the Moon to spin while orbiting. That claim is demonstrably false.
I suspect you know it. Hence why you keep deflecting.
You should have distanced away from Gordo’s crap a long time ago. You’re just a little hypocrit here to troll.
Please stop trolling.
Willard, you can’t even tell when a comment is directed at you, or RLH.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
You’re using Richard to peddle your crap in my thread. That won’t happen. If Richard wants to bait you by adding his own misunderstandings, he should do it in his own threads.
In my book, Richard is not very much above Gordo.
Your thread? Because you start something on someone else’s site you think you own it? The site too?
No, Willard, I am simply responding to somebody who addressed a comment towards me. As usual, everything I have said in this thread is 100% correct. I was even quite generous to include 2). I’m sorry that you don’t understand, and that you get so frustrated when I try to correct you.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
You’re not trying to correct me, you’re trying to deflect from Gordo’s “demonstration.” The equivalence you now explicitly accept has been predicted in my very first comment to you regarding that issue. Not only that, but I reminded you of it in just about every single thread since then!
I guess that makes you a soft non-spinner.
***
Now riddle me this. You say:
Where would C1 be connected to C2 exactly?
I see two possibilities: (a) its rim or (b) its center.
Also, how do you think that this anchor is connected?
I see two possibilities: (c) a fixed joint or (d) a free joint.
The four combinations lead to very different answers.
Willard, I have always understood and argued that 1) and 2) are equivalent. So has just about every "Non-Spinner" I can think of.
2) is just the motion of the "moon on the right" plus rotation about an internal axis, once per orbit, in the same direction as the orbit. 1) is just the motion of the "moon on the left".
It’s still true that you should not apply 2) when 1) exists. 1) being a pure rotation about an external axis.
It’s like you don’t pay any attention at all.
Not going to follow you into the weeds on your other point until you accept that 1) applies to your C1 and C2.
> So has just about every “Non-Spinner” I can think of.
Too bad you forgot to read the comment that kicked out this thread, Kiddo:
You do understand what “impossible” means, don’t you?
If you do, then you should be able to understand that if A and B are equivalent and A is impossible, then B is impossible too!
Pretty sure Gordon understands that the only way the moon can be rotating on its own axis is if “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the “moon on the right”:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Pretty sure you didn’t pay much attention to Gordo’s argument, Kiddo:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-861957
I’m glad you agree that not only it is possible, but that the Moon Dragon position is equivalent to the established viewpoint.
You lost. Twas fun.
Thanks a bunch!
Of course it’s equivalent. Both the “Spinners” and “Non-Spinners” are describing the same thing, after all. The motion of the moon.
Only if Moon Dragons model the motion properly, Kiddo.
Only if.
If you say so, Willard.
The Moon’s Rotation
The Moon raises tidal bulges on the Earth; similarly, the Earth raises tidal bulges on the Moon. Since the Earth’s mass is roughly 80 times that of the Moon, and the Earth’s radius is roughly four times that of the Moon, we see that the differential gravitational acceleration across the Moon due to the Earth is 20 times the differential gravitational acceleration across the Earth due to the Moon. Tidal bulges on the Moon are thus larger than those on the Earth, and tidal braking is more effective on the Moon than on the Earth. In fact, tidal braking has been so effective that the Moon is now locked into synchronous rotation; that is, its sidereal period of rotation is equal to its sidereal period of revolution. Since the rotation period of the Moon is equal to its orbital period, the Moon always presents the same hemisphere toward the Earth.
Synchronous rotation has resulted in permanent tidal bulges on the Moon that are aligned with the EarthMoon line, making the synchronous rotation stable against perturbations.
The rotation of the Moon about its center of mass is described by the three empirical laws stated by Cassini in 1721.
Cassini’s laws are valid to a high degree of approximation, and departures in the Moon’s rotation from them consist of small oscillations called the physical libration. The causes of these slight wobbles are the shape of the Moon (which as stated is approximately a triaxial ellipsoid with the longest axis always pointing in the general direction of the Earth) and the attraction of the Earth on this protuberance. Because the Moon in its elliptic orbit obeys Kepler’s second law while the Moon rotates uniformly on its axis, the long axis of the Moon oscillates about the line joining the centers of Earth and Moon with an amplitude of about 8 degrees. The Earth thus tends to swing the Moon in various directions giving rise to the forced oscillations.
In fact, tidal braking has been so effective that the Moon is now locked into what is erroneously called "synchronous rotation" – that is, it no longer rotates on its own axis.
Looks like you’re going for LOCK, Kiddo:
(LOCK) The Moon is tidally locked, hence why it has stopped spinning.
That’s not a slip anymore.
If you paid the attention to my arguments that you like to pretend you do, Willard, then you would be aware that this is nothing new. But you’re just here to troll, as we all know.
That’s, like, your opinion, Kiddo. A quote from you might be nice.
I edited LOCK a bit to make it more zip:
(LOCK) The Moon is tidally locked, hence why it no longer spins.
I predict you’ll whine about not being quoted, being taken out of context, being misunderstood, the usual litany of a sore loser.
I expect you’ll troll. Oh, I was right.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
You said something that is obviously false. I called your bluff. Now you run away.
Please stop trolling.
Huh? What is obviously false? How am I running away when I’m still here talking to you?
If you understood the "Non-Spinner" position, you would know that what the "Spinners" describe as "orbiting whilst rotating on an internal axis, once per orbit, in the same direction as the orbit", the "Non-Spinners" describe as "orbiting whilst not rotating on an internal axis".
Therefore the "tidal locking" mechanism will act to reduce internal axis rotation to nil from the "Non-Spinner" perspective.
> What is false
That I didn’t pay attention to your arguments as much as I claim I did, Kiddo.
It’s been a while you invoked tidal locking *directly* to argue that it stopped the Moon. Last time you did in the thread, it was only an hypothetical.
Please remind me.
There is no external axis in a connected body as such. Just an axis that is another part of the whole.
Not paying attention to context again, are you, RLH?
Not recognizing that connecting 2 parts together makes a single combined whole.
Irrelevant. Both here and where you originally raised the point. Especially here.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
Understanding and modelling properly what connects the Moon with the Earth is critical to the Moon Dragon crank Master Argument.
Whatever you say, Willard.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
If two hypotheses are formally equivalent, then what matters is how they fare empirically. Are you ready to step in the physical world?
Here’s your chance:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-876425
Also pay attention to Bob’s point that the motion of the Moon isn’t constant.
Already stepped into the physical world with the Newton’s Cannonball discussion.
Which you got wrong.
OK, RLH.
“no longer rotates on its own axis”
Wrong. It rotates once on its own axis per orbit.
Wow, that was an unexpected response.
Truth hurts doesn’t it?
If it turned out that the moon did rotate on its own axis, it would not bother me at all. However, I don’t think that it does.
Regardless, there are still so many parts of the discussion I am correct about, and would still be correct about even if it turned out that the moon did rotate on its own axis, that at this stage I am happy no matter the outcome of the debate.
The MOTL is always going to be the one that is rotating about an external axis and not rotating about an internal axis, not the MOTR. That remains true no matter what the outcome.
“If it turned out that the moon did rotate on its own axis, it would not bother me at all. However, I don’t think that it does.”
You are wrong.
I accept and acknowledge that you think that.
I accept the fact that you are wrong.
OK, RLH.
Sorry Charlie,
But the tidal braking is still slowing the rotation rate of the Moon.
https://astronomy.com/magazine/ask-astro/2016/08/the-moons-rotation-rate
The moon remains “tidally locked”. It just means that the orbital period is increasing.
DR EMPTY,
“The moon remains tidally locked.”
You realize what this means?
In addition to the Moon maintaining one face towards the Earth, it also means the orbital period and rotational period match.
Which means the rotational period of the Moon can not be zero.
No, it just means that the orbital period increases. The moon remains not rotating on its own axis.
That would be the "Non-Spinner" perspective, should you ever choose to fully understand it.
“The moon remains not rotating on its own axis”
The Moon IS rotating on its own axis once every 27 days or per orbit of the Earth.
DR EMPTY,
“That would be the “Non-Spinner” perspective, should you ever choose to fully understand it.”
I do understand it fully.
It’s koo-koo for Cocoa Puffs.
As are you.
OK, bob.
–Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
September 26, 2021 at 4:25 PM
No, it just means that the orbital period increases. The moon remains not rotating on its own axis.
That would be the “Non-Spinner” perspective, should you ever choose to fully understand it.–
Or otherwise in the billion years, we right now, are in very, very, lucky time.
Earlier the Moon Dragon Crank in Chief thus opined:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-875879
(1) refers to
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-875694
C1 and C2 refers to this thought experiment:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-875646
Also note that Kiddo conceded:
The last claim is false: Gordo believes that 2) is impossible.
***
While resolving all this, our Moon-Dragon-Crank-in-Chief forgot to answer these two questions:
Q1. Where would C1 be connected to C2 exactly?
I see two possibilities: (a) its rim or (b) its center.
Q2. How is this anchor connected?
I see two possibilities: (c) a fixed joint or (d) a free joint.
An answer to this puzzle might be required to understand the physical aspect of the Moon-Earth system.
Will our Moon-Dragon-Crank-in-Chief respond?
Stay tuned for a new Moonball episode!
Pretty sure Gordon understands that the only way the moon can be rotating on its own axis is if “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the “moon on the right”:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
I will answer your questions once you accept that 1) applies to your coin example.
Except that ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’, i.e, always facing a fixed star, is MOTR, not MOTL and all sides of the Moon would then be seen from the Earth if it were MOTL, as the diagram clearly shows.
If you isolate the Moon, i.e. stand at its pole, this is clearly shown that MOTL rotates but the MOTR does not.
No, “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTL.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-838616
Please stop switching from physics to geometry.
Willard, the basic argument boils down to:
"Spinners" – "orbital motion without axial rotation" is as per the MOTR.
"Non-Spinners" – "orbital motion without axial rotation" is as per the MOTL.
I know you don’t understand. But I don’t mind.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
The basic argument boils down to the question if the Moon orbits and spins or if the Moon only orbits.
See? Really simple. Let’s repeat it:
[Moon Dragon Cranks] The Moon only orbits.
[Everyone else] The Moon orbits and spins.
The more you insist on GIF, the more you reinforce SHORT:
(SHORT) The Moon cannot spin because I do not see it spinning.
Looking at a GIF won’t give us a mathematical model of the Moon-Earth system, you know.
OK, Willard.
> Pretty sure Gordon understands that the only way the [M]oon can be rotating on its own axis is if
Pretty sure you don’t understand what you just conceded, Kiddo:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-876082
The two claims are
(1) Rotated C2 around an external axis in the center of C1 without rotating C2 about its own internal axis.
(2) Translated C2 around C1 whilst rotating C2 on its own internal axis.
Which reduce:
(1*) Orbit without spin.
(2*) Translation with spin.
The second claim is intriguing, for it entails the amazing idea that tidally locked celestial bodies do not orbit if they spin!
No idiot, it entails the rather less amazing idea that "Spinners" see "orbit" as "translation" and not "rotation about an external axis".
For the 10 millionth time, "Spinners" see "orbital motion without axial rotation" as motion like the MOTR. "Spinners" would also describe that motion as "curvilinear translation, in a circle".
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
The established viewpoint is that the Moon both orbit and spin.
Yes, dear. I know.
> I know
I’m not so sure about that, Kiddo, for you just said that [just about everyone] see “orbit” as “translation” and not “rotation about an external axis”. So I’ll repeat what I just said, if only to fix a typo:
The established viewpoint is that the Moon both orbits and spins. And we both know what’s an orbit:
https://www.thoughtco.com/rotation-and-revolution-definition-astronomy-3072287
Willard, “Spinners” see “orbit” as translation, by which I mean motion like the MOTR.
“Non-Spinners” see “orbit” as rotation about an external axis, motion like the MOTL.
> “Spinners” see “orbit” as translation
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
https://www.generationgenius.com/earth-rotation-and-orbit/
It’s really not that hard to see a circular orbit as a rotation. But it’s often easier to describe an orbit as a general motion involving both translation and rotation.
As usual, Willard finds a link that does not contradict what I am saying. Then confuses himself greatly.
As usual, Kiddo is wrong. To see how, let’s track back:
(1) Rotated C2 around an external axis in the center of C1 without rotating C2 about its own internal axis.
(2) Translated C2 around C1 whilst rotating C2 on its own internal axis.
Since the established viewpoint interprets an orbit as involving both rotation and translation, two things obtain:
First, Kiddo posits a false choice between rotation and translation to describe an orbit. Which goes on to show that Bob was right: Kiddo indeed confuses “and” and “or.”
Second, Kiddo’s model will have to satisfy two more constraints than the ones that abide by the established viewpoint: to reduce an orbit as a mere rotation, which is problematic for non-circular orbits; to explain a complex motion with only one rotation.
No wonder he can’t provide any model besides silly examples!
“Since the established viewpoint interprets an orbit as involving both rotation and translation”
No, it doesn’t, Willard. Assuming you mean “orbital motion without axial rotation” then no, it doesn’t. Hence your entire comment goes in the trash.
> No, it doesn’t.
Strong argument you got there, Kiddo.
Have a look:
https://www.ualberta.ca/folio/2018/12/new-mathematical-model-helps-scientists-unlock-the-moons-inner-secrets.html
Good, keep finding sources that support the idea “orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion like the MOTL..i.e rotation about an external axis. Carry on.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
Most resources clearly show that the established viewpoint does not interpret orbits as mere translation, but as involving translation too.
The Moon Dragon cranks have no geometrical leg to stand on. They don’t have any new physics to interpret tidal-locking. So they’re stuck at trolling on blogs like Roy’s.
Please stop trolling.
Swanson, Folkerts and my stalker have all argued that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is purely translational motion, Willard. Try to get up to speed with the arguments of those on your own side of the debate before blindly going on the attack.
> but as involving translation too.
Erm. As involving rotation, of course.
> Swanson, Folkerts and [Nate] have all argued that [orbit without spin] is purely translational motion
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo: there are many ways to describe some motion M. More so if we move from geometry to physics!
You keep getting sidetracked by the word “is” – try to read “can be interpreted as” instead. That should reduce the number of mistakes.
Please stop being sidetracked.
Please just accept that you are wrong.
Please stop gaslighting, Kiddo.
Point out that Willard is wrong and he accuses you of gaslighting.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
OK, Willard.
DR EMPTY,
“Willard, Spinners see orbit as translation, by which I mean motion like the MOTR.
Non-Spinners see orbit as rotation about an external axis, motion like the MOTL.”
Orbit is both.
Both the Moon on the left and the Moon on the right are orbiting.
We are fully capable of separating the two motions, orbiting and rotating.
Non-spinners seem to have difficulties with that concept.
Yes, bob, both are orbiting, well done. Only one of them is “orbiting without axial rotation” however. Which is the point, of course.
> “Non-Spinners” see “orbit” as rotation
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
1. The established viewpoint models orbits using both rotation and translation. It’s a general motion.
2. Gordo himself keeps saying that the orbit is pure translation. Unlike you, he’s a hard Moon Dragon crank.
Whatever you say, Willard.
Got to love Moon Dragon cranks:
[KIDDO] “Non-Spinners” see “orbit” as rotation
[GORDO] I proved it further using an airliner orbiting at 35,000 feet around the Equator. It keeps the same face pointed at the Earth and cannot rotate about any axis or it will crash. Therefore, its orbit is purely translation without rotation, as is the Moons orbit.
Yes, Gordon sees pure curvilinear translation in a circle as motion per the MOTL. Textbooks would describe pure curvilinear translation in a circle as motion per the MOTR.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Gordo obviously missed your reading sessions on Madhavi’s handout. You argued over and over again that rotation implied no translation. Gordo comes in and “proves” that there can only be translation and no rotation.
You little hypocrit!
Gordon has been arguing that curvilinear translation in a circle is as per the MOTL for the past three years, Willard. Textbooks suggest that it would be as per the MOTR. Just like I said.
Kiddo, please stop gaslighting.
I just stated two facts, Willard.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
You deflected from the point I made by returning to your safe space. GIF is your safe space.
Gordo’s “proof” has nothing to do with GIF.
I still stated two facts, Willard.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
“Would describe” is a counterfactual claim, not a factual one.
You little hypocrite.
Here are the two facts I am referring to, troll:
1) Gordon has been arguing that curvilinear translation in a circle is as per the MOTL for the past three years.
2) Textbooks suggest that it as per the MOTR.
DR EMPTY,
Yes,
“Yes, bob, both are orbiting, well done. Only one of them is orbiting without axial rotation however. Which is the point, of course.”
But this leads to a logical inconsistency with your position, but not with mine.
Because your position is than an object that exhibits no axial rotation can change orientation.
That’s impossible, therefore your position is caput.
Broken
Wrong
Inconsistent
Does not compute
All your base belong to us
That’s because you think rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is motion as per the MOTR, bob. You are wrong about that, though. It is motion as per the MOTL.
> Textbooks suggest that it as per the MOTR.
Stop projecting your own interpretation of the GIF, Kiddo.
That GIF was made to make a point about physics, not geometry.
It’s just a GIF of two different motions, Willard. There used to be a diagram that one of the "Non-Spinners" made that demonstrated the two different motions using arrows, instead of being animated. I don’t know what happened to that, so I use that GIF instead. It’s kind of better, since it’s animated. Some people used to get confused by the arrows.
> It’s just a GIF of two different motion
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
The GIF is meant to illustrate a spin-orbit lock. Here is again the legend:
This is a physical phenomenon.
Please stop inventing ideas to fit your conclusions, rather than using known physics to lead to conclusions.
It’s just an animation of two different motions, Willard.
DR EMPTY,
“That’s because you think rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis, is motion as per the MOTR, bob. You are wrong about that, though. It is motion as per the MOTL.”
It has nothing to do with what I think.
It has everything to do with your position, which means you don’t even understand your position.
Which has a logical inconsistency, which you refuse to acknowledge even exists.
So have you changed the definition of orientation?
It is as I said in my previous comment to you, bob.
DR EMPTY,
So you are still wrong, Franco is still dead, and you are acting like a child.
So you go ahead and spit your binky.
No, the MOTL is definitely the one that is rotating about an external axis and not rotating about an internal axis, bob, not the MOTR. Which of course means that an object can change its orientation without rotating about an internal axis. Just like the MOTL.
Which of course means that an object can change its orientation without rotating about an internal axis as observed from the object. Just like the MOTL and the real one.
DR EMPTY,
That’s some pretzel logic you got going there.
You know your arguments are supposed to support your conclusions.
You don’t define your terms to fit your conclusions.
No, just straightforward and correct, bob. Sorry for your loss.
DR EMPTY,
I present you with the CHEATERS trophy.
Sorry for your personality.
DR EMPTY,
Damn, why can’t I be a sociopath like you?
More projection from bob.
This will almost surely not change any minds but …
Put “C1” on the table.
Put “C2” on a frictionless axle. (this could be approximated by the tip of a pin in a small divot at the center of the penny)
Both pennies are initially stationary. Now start moving C2 in a circle around C1. This is “orbital motion”.
Because of the frictionless nature of the axle, the same side will remain facing the same direction. The penny started with “no rotation about its axis”; it will continue with “no rotation about its axis”.
Gravity is like a ‘frictionless pin’. Providing an inward centripetal force, but providing no* torque.
To make the mark on the penny penny ‘always face in’ would require giving the penny an initial spin that equals the rate that C2 is moved around C1.
*NOTE: Gravity does provide a small tidal torque, but to a first approximation, we can ignore this.
> To make the mark on the penny penny “always face in” would require giving the penny an initial spin that equals the rate that C2 is moved around C1.
Bingo.
Kiddo seems to acknowledge that when he relies on LOCK:
(LOCK) The Moon is tidally locked, hence why it has stopped spinning.
“Gravity is like a ‘frictionless pin’. Providing an inward centripetal force, but providing no* torque.”
…but Tim already agreed upthread that the cannon provides a torque about the external axis (at the center of the Earth) for the cannonball. He just thinks that the torque does not lead to the cannonball rotating about the external axis. Even though the cannonball does go on to move in a circle about the axis…
“He just thinks that the torque does not lead to the cannonball rotating about the external axis”
Whilst it is physically connected it rotates about the axis it is connected to. Once it stops being physically connected, any angular momentum will continue around its own internal axis.
That is how physics works.
Think of athlete throwing a hammer. Whilst they are joined they rotate about a common center. Once released, the hammer continues to rotate around its own center during its flight.
Once again you jump into the discussion without paying any attention to context. The cannonball is not “physically connected” to the external axis, yet Tim agreed that the force from the cannon applies a torque about the external axis.
DREMT is badly confused about what I said and about how physics operates.
Let me use the frictionless penny example instead. There are now three pennies, at the three ends of a “T” drawn on the table top The penny at the base of the “T” accelerates toward the intersection, carried by the frictionless pin.
* Calculated relative to the ‘left’ penny, the torque vector is “upward” (counterclockwise)
* Calculated relative to the ‘right’ penny, the torque vector is “downward” (clockwise)
* Calculated relative to the ‘midpoint’ of the two pennies, the torque vector is zero.
No matter how I choose to *calculate* the torque, the penny is maintaining a fixed orientation with respect to the ‘fixed stars’. The only change is an acceleration forward. (and the cannonball likewise is not rotating when it comes out of the cannon).
Now I stop applying the forward force. (and hence stop applying any torque about any axis).
* If I apply a force toward the left penny, the moving penny will orbit the left penny. This sideways force applies no torque. The penny does not change orientation WRT the ‘fixed stars’
* If I apply a force toward the right penny, the moving penny will orbit the right penny. This sideways force applies no torque. The penny does not change orientation WRT the ‘fixed stars’
* If I apply no force , the moving penny will continue straight forward. This zero force applies no torque. The penny does not change orientation WRT the ‘fixed stars’.
In every case, the penny is not rotating about its own axis (the pin) as is moves. Pulling the ‘pin’ toward the left or right penny does not make the penny spin!
> Calculated relative
Please pay attention, Kiddo.
Tim declares I am confused. Then, as is always his first instinct, he takes a simple example (the cannon and ball) and immediately replaces it with a more confusing example.
Tim, what you said was that the force from the cannon would indeed apply a torque about the external axis (the axis at the center of the Earth), which is what I had been arguing for months, and with which my stalker disagreed. Then you went on to say that this torque would not lead to a rotation about the external axis, despite the fact that the cannonball does travel around the axis in a circle. You gave a rather strange example of a car driving along a road passing some posts. The obvious difference being that the cannonball does go on to travel in a circle around the axis, unlike the car, which just passes the posts without turning.
If the cannonball does indeed rotate about an external axis, and not about an internal axis, then it moves as per the MOTL, proving the “Non-Spinners” correct. So, it is worth following up on this point.
“replaces it with a more confusing example.”
Only confusing if you don’t understand torques. The only thing ‘new’ is that I didn’t specify which direction the force would be AFTER ‘leaving the cannon’.
“the force from the cannon would indeed apply a torque about the external axis ”
Yep ! Just like the pin applies a torque about an external axis. The torque happens to have different signs and different magnituides for different externals axes.
“If the cannonball does indeed rotate about an external axis …”
But it doesn’t rotate about that axis — not in the sense of “rigid body rotation’. Neither the penny nor the cannonball nor the moon is attached to any external axis. The penny simply moves around that external point.
Or think aobut it this way. As the penny gets to the intersection, I have a free choice which way to move the penny — circling left, cirlcing right, or straight. The penny doesn’t ‘know’ what I will choose. It can’t ‘choose’ to start rotating one way or the other when I choose a direction. It remains in the same orientation ‘with respect to the fixed stars.’
Please stop deflecting, Kiddo.
Tim, stop deflecting. Why does the torque about the external axis not cause the cannonball to rotate about the external axis?
More art:
[K] If the cannonball does indeed rotate about an external axis
[T] But it doesn’t rotate about that axis
[K] Why does the torque about the external axis not cause the cannonball to rotate about the external axis?
Tim needs to explain, not just assert, Willard. He has asserted that the cannonball does not rotate about the external axis, but he has not explained why. Please butt out of the discussion.
“Why does the torque about the external axis not cause the cannonball to rotate about the external axis?”
Because that is not how torques work!
*IF* the external axis were fixed and *IF* the cannon ball were rigidly attached to the external axis (by some rigid rod for example, or some cosmic merry-go-round platform), *THEN* the cannonball/rod combo would be rotating as a unit about that external axis and the cannonball would be changing orientations WRT to the stars.
But that is not what happens with the penny.
But that is not what happens with the cannon ball.
But that is not what happens with the moon.
“Because that is not how torques work!”
So torques don’t lead to rotation!?
“*IF* the external axis were fixed and *IF* the cannon ball were rigidly attached to the external axis (by some rigid rod for example, or some cosmic merry-go-round platform)…”
…or connected via gravity…
> Tim needs to explain, not just assert
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Tim keeps explaining, over and over again:
Hence why you deflected to your cannonball example.
You are free to believe as you wish. It is pointless talking to you. I await a response from Tim.
“So torques don’t lead to rotation!?”
You are getting there …
A torque (as calculated about a specific axis) applied to an object leads to a change in angular momentum (as measured about that same axis). This may or may not lead to rotation about that axis.
In particular, if there is some rigid connection from the location of the force to the axis in question, then there will be rotation of the rigid object about that that specific axis.
…and gravity is not rigid enough a connection for you?
If only Kiddo paid any attention to yesterday’s puzzle:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-876425
Bless him, Willard thinks he has found something new!
“and gravity is not rigid enough a connection for you?”
Absolutely NOT rigid enough! If gravity were “rigid”, then …
* it would be impossible for a moon to get further from or closer to its planet.
* it would be impossible for a moon to do anything besides face its planet.
But real moons have elliptical orbits.
Real moons rotate at varying rates, not always locked to their planet.
Gravity is NOT rigid!
It only needs to be rigid enough that the torque about the external axis results in rotation about the external axis. Since there is nothing to apply a torque about the internal axis, there will be no rotation about the internal axis. An object rotating about an external axis and not rotating about an internal axis moves as per the MOTL.
> Since there is nothing to apply a torque about the internal axis, there will be no rotation about the internal axis.
Let’s add TORQUE:
(TORQUE) Since there is nothing to apply a torque about the internal axis, there will be no spin.
Right next to LOCK:
(LOCK) The Moon is tidally locked, hence why it no longer spins.
So Kiddo’s argument is that the Moon does not spin because it spun but now is locked and so does not, hence it has no inner torque.
Gravity as a braking system, so to speak.
That’s it, Willard, carefully avoid making note of the important parts of the argument, the torque about the external axis, and the rotation about that…
“It [gravity] only needs to be rigid enough that the torque about the external axis results in rotation about the external axis. ”
But it is NOT EVEN THAT RIGID! There are just not enough ways to tell you this.
Can you jump? Gravity does not hold you rigidly at a specific distance from the center of the earth.
Can you do a somersault? Gravity does not hold you rigidly in a specific orientation relative to the center of the earth.
> the torque about the external axis
Let’s remind where Kiddo is wrong once again:
(LIKE A BOS) The ball-on-a-string (or BOS) illustrates orbit without spin. It implies rotation but not translation. But it is only an illustration.
Kiddo does not always turn to BOS mode, but when he’s not “rigidly attached” to it, pun intended.
Tim, you are getting yourself confused. I am not arguing that gravity holds the cannonball at a specific orientation or fixed distance from the Earth. As I said, gravity applies no torque about the cannonball’s internal or external axis. The force from the cannon applies the torque to the external axis. Gravity just connects the cannonball to the center of the Earth. Not rigidly, but rigidly enough.
In anticipation of Kiddo’s “The force from the cannon applies the torque to the external axis,” which has yet to be approved by Roy’s parser:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-844034
“DREMT “the force from the cannon would indeed apply a torque about the external axis ”
TIM: Yep !”
[KIDDO] and gravity is not rigid enough a connection for you?
[TIM] But it is NOT EVEN THAT RIGID! There are just not enough ways to tell you this. Can you jump? Gravity does not hold you rigidly at a specific distance from the center of the earth.
Can you do a somersault? Gravity does not hold you rigidly in a specific orientation relative to the center of the earth.
[KIDDO] The force from the cannon applies the torque to the external axis. Gravity just connects the cannonball to the center of the Earth. Not rigidly, but rigidly enough.
Art.
Yes, it is artful how you leave out the key sentences.
Fair:
[TIM] Until you recognize this fundamental error, there is no point moving forward.
Pure sophistry from Willard. The error referred to by Tim there was in stating that what generates the torque about the external axis was a combination of the force of gravity acting at right angles to the object’s linear momentum. It is the force from the cannon that generates the torque. But this mistake has been acknowledged and corrected, and the entire discussion that has taken place today has moved on from that.
“Not rigidly, but rigidly enough.”
it would be fascinating to hear your mathematical definition of “rigid enough”. How you you calculate “rigidness” and what value constitutes “rigid enough”?
Yeah, that was a bit snarky. But you are just inventing ideas to fit your conclusions, rather than using known physics to lead to conclusions.
Think what you want. "Orbital motion without axial rotation" is as per the MOTL.
> But this mistake has been acknowledged and corrected
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
You still have not acknowledged your mistake.
And you still repeat a variation of it by suggesting gravity is “rigid enough” to induce a torque. This might explain why you say that the force is applied *to* the external axis. Force is applied *to* an object *about* an axis; a cannon does not shoot axes. Gravity does not “pull” the cannonball in a rigid manner. Planes need to self-correct. The Moon spins. Etc.
No wonder you refuse to answer the puzzle.
Willard reveals that he failed to follow any of the discussion. No surprises there.
[TIM, to KIDDO] You are just inventing ideas to fit your conclusions, rather than using known physics to lead to conclusions.
[DREMT, to WILLARD] You just demonstrated that you did not follow the discussion at all. Why do you keep embarrassing yourself?
Prove Kiddo wrong, and he’ll whine that you can’t follow the discussion.
Your 11:12 AM comment proves that you cannot follow the discussion.
But by all means, carry on embarrassing yourself.
“Think what you want. “Orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTL.”
This is the central irony of this whole inane discussion. I am not ‘thinking what I want’ — I am thinking the same thing that EVERY SCEIENTIST THINKS, based on consistent applications of the laws of physics.
You, on the other hand, ARE thinking what you want. You are declaring an answer based on your own authority.
“But this mistake has been acknowledged and corrected … ”
This is a further bit of irony. You acknowledge that one of your adamantly held positions was wrong. Ie you acknowledge that your understanding of torque is weak. Yet you still insist that *this* *time* you must be right!
Actually Tim, in previous discussions over the years I had even said "the force from the cannon/linear momentum acting at right angles to the force of gravity". I left out "the force from the cannon" one time, and of course you make as big a deal out of it as you possibly can. Desperate times call for desperate measures, I suppose.
DREMT, your errors with equations is only part of the problem anyway. You ALSO have trouble with definitions and concepts.
For example, things like: “If “revolution” really is “rotation about an external axis”, as it is defined to be”.
There are (at least) two distinct defintions or “revolution”.
1) Revolution = rotation = circular motion about a fixed point
2) Revolution = orbit = elliptical path due to gravity.
These are not the same! You are basically saying Definition 1 = Definition 2. That orbit are *defined* to be be circular.
Orbits are NOT rotations.
Orbits are NOT rotations.
Orbits are NOT rotations.
Orbits are NOT rotations.
Read that a few more times until it sinks in. Orbits are elliptical paths. There is nothing “rigid”. The barycenter is not a ‘fixed central point’.
You are so committed to your *declaration* of a correct answer that it blinds you to thinking about other possibilities.
Calm down, Tim. Try not to be so committed to your declaration of a correct answer that it blinds you to thinking about other possibilities.
Robertson shows with his nonsense…
” Of course, anyone who can read the statistical garbage produced my Meier, which includes a fictitious centrifugal force, could never understand real physics. ”
… once again that he is not just a pretentious and ignorant boaster who understands nothing of Mayer’s work, although it has been explained to him many times.
This incredible sentence moreover also shows once again that he is always ready to distort, discredit, denigrate and lie about anything that does not fit into what he invents day after day.
*
Robertson never did read anything out of Mayers work: that is evident for anybody who read Mayer’s treatise from beginning till end.
I have often shown a link to a chapter in the English dissertation of the Dutch scientist Steven Wepster:
https://dspace.library.uu.nl/bitstream/handle/1874/22975/c9.pdf
In the chapter, you see in section 9.5.1 how Mayer uses spherical trigonometry to compute the inclination of Moons polar axis.
In section 9.5.2, Wepster explains how Mayer managed to solve a system of 27 equations with three unknown variables, originating from his observations of the lunar crater Manilius.
Anybody able and willing to carefully read that section immediately understands what Mayer did, and above all, that it had NOTHING to do with the alleged ‘statistical garbage’ brazenly claimed by the dumb ignoramus (nick)named Robertson.
*
And of course, Robertson’s second brazen claim about “a fictitious centrifugal force”, allegedly included in that “garbage”, very probably has only one source: excessive alcohol, hashish or crack use.
Simply because nowhere in Mayers treatise will you find any reference to such a force, except in a section where he uses Newton’s laws of gravity to show that the shape of the Moon has sufficient sphericity to allow the use of spherical trigonometry which, in case of Moons excessive oblateness, would have lead to fundamental flaws.
Unlike Lagrange and Laplace, who generalized Mayer’s work by using second order differential equations of motion, Mayer’s computations were 100 % based on spherical trigonometry.
*
Yeah: thats Robertson, the pseudo-engineer.
*
But… all of these remarks apply to the person (nick)named ‘bill hunter’ as well, who manifestly also couldn’t even read and understand Wepsters English properly.
binny…”I have often shown a link to a chapter in the English dissertation of the Dutch scientist Steven Wepster:
Or, you see in section 9.5.1 how Mayer uses spherical trigonometry to compute the inclination of Moons polar axis”.
***
Both Wepster and Mayer were too stupid to understand that libration has nothing to do with a rotating Moon. They both presumed that based on what they had been told but a simple mathematical analysis using radial and tangential lines would have revealed clearly that libration cannot occur with a purely circular orbit, therefore it is a property of an elliptical orbit.
I consider myself a nobody in physics and math yet I was able to explain libration solely on the properties of an elliptical orbit. I credit Tim for raising my awareness to the problem and had he focused on the problem more, he’d have seen it himself.
The lunar orbit is slightly elliptical and close enough to a circle to be considered circular. The difference lies in the angle of a tangent line to any point on an elliptical orbit to the equivalent angle on a circular orbit. The radial line perpendicular to a tangent line on a circle always points to the centre of the circle but on an ellipse, it points slightly away from the Earth’s centre, located at the principal focus of the ellipse.
That’s why you can see around the edge of the Moon (longitudinal libration)on an ellipse and not on a circle. It has nothing to do with local rotation. Mayer wasted his time trying to calculate the inclination of a lunar axis because none exists. The Moon does not rotate about any axis, if anything, it rotates around the Earth in Dremt’s external axis.
All of that explains why the Moon always has the same face pointed to the Earth, and libration.
The Moon does not rotate about any axis as observed from our moon, if anything, it also rotates around the Earth in Dremt’s external axis.
indeed binny one can easily adapt all this to locating the axis of a chalked circle on a spinning disk and proclaim that to be its rotational axis. the powers of persuasion by rock stars work especially well on the most credulous of those among us.
More art:
[T] Tidal braking has been so effective that the Moon is now locked into synchronous rotation; that is, its sidereal period of rotation is equal to its sidereal period of revolution. .
[K] Tidal braking has been so effective that the Moon is now locked into what is erroneously called “synchronous rotation” – that is, it no longer rotates on its own axis.
[B] But the tidal braking is still slowing the rotation rate of the Moon.
[K] The moon remains “tidally locked”. It just means that the orbital period is increasing.
[B] You realize what this means? In addition to the Moon maintaining one face towards the Earth, it also means the orbital period and rotational period match. Which means the rotational period of the Moon can not be zero.
[K] No, it just means that the orbital period increases. The moon remains not rotating on its own axis.
***
Millions of years of evolution.
Yes, you do not understand the “Non-Spinner” perspective. That much is clear.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Yet your many ignorant comments prove me right.
It actually wouldn’t, Kiddo, but that possibility fails to be relevant here as you’re wrong.
OK, Willard.
What is comical is that you guys argue whether the Moon’s rotation is zero or 1/29 that of Earth, but you completely ignore the most exciting aspect of the Moon. It is the same distance from the Sun as Earth but has almost the same mean surface temperature as Mars, and it should have roughly the same mean surface temperature as Earth, and according to you, flat-Earth alarmists should be 255K.
Something tells me that you’re like Galileo and believe that the Moon has an atmosphere, Troglodyte.
Is that correct?
So, is black body radiation based upon an atmosphere? Which term is that?
I guess if you’re going to be a dimwit, it is best to be a clueless dimwit.
Try this, Troglodyte:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xezYQn52Js
stephen…”It [Moon] is the same distance from the Sun as Earth but has almost the same mean surface temperature as Mars, and it should have roughly the same mean surface temperature as Earth”
***
Interesting point. Mars has an atmosphere that is 95% CO2 but NASA whines it is too thin to ‘trap’ heat. Heat cannot be trapped by atoms or molecules but NASA persists with the same old propaganda.
Surprisingly, Mars rotates at almost the same rate as Earth and has a similar tilt to that of the Earth. It takes longer to orbit since its orbital path is longer. It’s average temperature varies from -150C up to 20C. That proves to me its average temperature has nothing to do with its atmosphere, rather it’s a statistical average with little meaning, as on Earth.
The problem with the Moon is, with no local rotation, it has one face in sunlight for about 14 days, then the opposite side in sunlight for another 14 days. That means the unlit faces are pointing to cold space for the same amount of time. The ‘dark side of the Moon’ is a fallacy, it is lit as much as the near face.
Gordo,
That’s part of the reason why its Tmean is lower than Earth. It rotates much slower, 1/29 versus 1. Or for you for 14 days one side faces the Sun and for 14 days the other side faces the Sun. Its Tmean is therefore lower.
stephen…don’t get me wrong, I am in agreement with you.
“The problem with the Moon is, with no local rotation”
Wrong. It has a 27 day local rotation , the same time as it takes to orbit the Earth.
Willard says:
More art:
[B] But the tidal braking is still slowing the rotation rate of the Moon.
—————————–
Actually not directly. There are/were two potential tidal braking forces for an orbiting body.
1) created by the orbited body on the orbiting body.
2) created by the orbiting body on the orbited body.
In the case of the moon there is no slowing of the moon’s internal axis rotation rate directly by this force as there is no such rotation.
However, the moon is slowing the rotation rate of the earth, the energy from which is being transferred into a larger lunar orbit.
IMO, an additional confusion among spinners is that the orbital rotation rate arises from the slowing of the one time independent spin rate of the moon down to one rotation per orbit (aka synchronous rotation).
The logic of this is wrong and inconsistent with the theory espoused by spinners. Using the cannon fired from the mountain top spinners claim zero spin per orbit.
Tidal braking is thus a misnomer and a tip o the hat to the non-spinner theory as it recognizes a tidal force that would not brake the moon’s rotation but instead would accelerate it.
Now tidal braking does exist as a completely separate concept.
This would exist with orbiting objects that possessed an independent spin from an additional force whether known or not.
This spin is braked to zero spin due to the ‘lunar’ bulge created by the earth. It is statistically impossible or finitely near impossible for the axis of this independent spin to be identical to the axis of the gravity force acting on the moon.
Thus all you spinner morons have been arguing an impossible argument that is totally non-sensical. The total lack of logic is why you guys cannot find a single science based argument to support your positions. No competent scientist that carefully studied the issue would ever make your arguments. There is simply a large number of scientists who have credulously latched on to the original myths related to this. The mythical assumption is that all rotational motions observed from a random point of view in the universe represents a spin that was induced by something other than the objects they currently rotate about.
Old Tesla easily recognized this and began to formulate a theory from it that he never proved but he didn’t make the stupid spinner assumptions above held by so many.
So one has to travel down the road rather than take stupid logic shortcuts to deny it and recognize that the moon effectively rotates around the earth’s COG due to the string-like pull of gravity.
And yes if that string broke (not known to be possible) some of the energy of that rotation would be imparted on the moon’s internal axis as is known by physics and it would seem logical to assume that non-synchronous rotations likely involve rotations created by two separate influences. The exception would likely be objects that are rotating at a rate less than the so-called synchronous rotation rate.
Hunter still refuses to understand that rotational motion is defined and measured in inertial space, which isn’t a coordinate system fixed on the Earth-Moon radial line. It’s a fundamental tenet of physics that rotating symmetrical free bodies exhibit a fixed direction of axial rotation wrt the stars.
Maybe Hunter was deprived when a child, his hands on education missing the experience of a toy gyroscope, which I found fascinating in the day. Of course, grownups have real 3 axis inertial gyroscopes to play with.
Swanson you are offering a science convention as scientific evidence.
Pure conventions are unproven assumptions. It may well be the conventional way that science looks at something but that does not make it a scientifically proven fact. . . .a fact that has been borne out in this forum thousands of times in your sides complete failure to offer such proof. So be my guest and continue down the path of a credulous moron.
Hunter, even Joe the Postman agrees that science requires math. Where’s the “No Spin” math model(s)? HERE’s the MATH from NASA. The “No Spin” cult has presented NOTHING that I’ve seen.
Swanson the math isn’t any different for the non-spin model for the movement of the moon. Why would there be?
Hunter, The basic dynamical math considers the motion of the body’s CM as separate from the body’s rotation about the CM, both in 3-D. That’s the simple explanation of the math I linked to. The “no spin” cult only considers motions in a 2-D plane and assumes that orbiting on an elliptical path isn’t different than a circular orbit. The facts show that the Moon rotates about an axis which is not perpendicular to the plane of the orbit, thus the motion can’t be described as a simple rotary motion around the Earth/Moon barycenter.
Get Real, Learn some Physics instead of tossing out more of your non-technical rants.
E. Swanson says:
Hunter, The basic dynamical math considers the motion of the bodys CM as separate from the bodys rotation about the CM,
—————————-
LOL! Lets say science learns how to create a super strong material that weighs practically nothing and is super strong. So we create a long thread of this inflexible material and attach a large ball at the end of it and rotate the whole assembly by the other end of the thread.
Are you saying the angular momentum of this object rotating around the axle is only equal to Lorb? And because it is attached rigidly to this inflexible thread Lspin equals zero?
Every particle of this large ball is part of the rigid assembly rotating around an axle at the opposite end of the thread from the ball. It has an angular momentum like a morning star weapon wielded by some medieval Teutonic warrior.
And then is your corollary to this is if we replace the inflexible thread with an invisible and flexible thread all of sudden the angular momentum is now larger?
Hunter replies to my comment with another red herring about another “ball-on-a-string” analogy, as if that represents the elliptical orbit of the Moon, or any other satellite.
Sorry, your model of a rigid connection has nothing to do with the Moon and it’s orbit around the Earth due to gravity. In orbit, one finds instantaneous linear momentum and rotational momentum of the body around it’s CM. The first changes while orbiting, the latter is a constant without the application of some external torque(s).
Of course, you also fail to provide any math to support your bogus model.
Swanson the only argument you have provided are conventions associated with mathematical equations.
Every argument including math problems has premises. One such premise in a mathematical argument for the moon rotating on it own axis is properly defining an axis of rotation.
You offered no math to do that nor any logic. You simply declare it to be a fact that the axis is where you believe it to be and you don’t rely upon scientific evidence but instead you rely upon a mathematical convention which begs the question. Its not an argument it is simply a standard/common way of approaching a problem (an assumption). It is not an argument that the axis is properly defined.
Madhavi provides clear and learned examples of how to divide up the angular momentums of various natures and spins as to whether they are a rotation on an internal axis or an external axis. Further and definitively this approach has a necessary physical reality that is crucial to teach students of engineering so that they can actually successfully complete a project in the most efficient manner possible.
That learned example strongly supports the non-spinner point of view.
OTOH, you haven’t offered anything but a series of conventions on how to use tools to properly calculate an angular momentum. But your quantification of that angular momentum simply ignores the actual construction of the lunar orbit around the earth’s COG. We even have examples of diagrams that excludes the presence of an orbit in order to fool people as to the actual entire motion of the moon to make their case. A pretty sad way to approach a science problem.
I am sure if you actually had anything worthwhile to say you would have said it a long time ago. But so far you have said nothing worthwhile beyond arguing points that are part of every real world project. . . .imperfect circles that create observational problems. . . .but nothing else. . . .as there is no such real thing as a perfect circle. . . .a perfect circle is nothing more than a concept that every engineer must consider the imperfection of what he is doing using the circle concept so as to not have his project fail. . . .those are all advanced courses and/or on the job experience.
You seem to have nothing more than a preliminarily education and completely lack the sophistication that comes with advanced studies and experience.
So if I have that take wrong you are always welcome to come up with a sophisticated argument that doesn’t beg the question.
Hunter posts another round of empty rhetoric, suggesting that the math used by NASA is just “conventions associated with mathematical equations”. Sorry guy, the mathematical equations are a way of describing the orbit and rotation of objects in space as determined by hundreds of years of astronomical observations. Until you and the “no spin” cult provide an alternative method to describe those measurements, you are just playing word games to annoy others. Maybe you are in fact another of pups sock puppets, a new mane to further spread disinformation on this site.
BTW, While I’m not an astronomer or orbit specialist, I did pass courses in dynamics on the way to achieving 2 engineering degrees decades ago. You, however, don’t appear to have any education on the subject, other than perhaps a reading of Madhavi’s course notes. Have you even made it to the study of science in college and a degree? If so, I’m sure that you would be happy brag about it, so do provide us the name of the institution and the date you received said degree.
For example, you just wrote:
Sorry, I’ve pointed out several times that the Moon’s orbit around the common barycenter is an ellipse. Orbital motion is in no way connected to a body’s rotation, which, for the Moon, has been measured with great accuracy. It is these measurements which establish the fact of rotation, as well as the axis around which that motion occurs. These measurements are not your “conventions”, they are FACTS. I hope that you understand the difference.
E. Swanson says:
Hunter posts another round of empty rhetoric, suggesting that the math used by NASA is just “conventions associated with mathematical equations”.
———————–
Strawman! I never said that Swanson. I said that all mathematical analysis has at its base the need to properly apply the math to a problem. For astronomy that is the convention of judging angular momentum from the perspective of the stars.
Never mind that the physical equation for the moon’s angular momentum. . . .the formula does just fine.
What has no support in science is eliminating the orbit. If you do that the moon suddenly only has the angular momentum of its rotational change in orientation to the stars but doing that does not properly account of the actual and complete motion of the moon as it most definitely does not sit in a single spot.
You want to do this to satisfy your ego. Can’t be any other reason as you have not provided any other reason.
For the non-spinners Madhavi provides another reason.
==============
==============
E. Swanson says:
BTW, While I’m not an astronomer or orbit specialist, I did pass courses in dynamics on the way to achieving 2 engineering degrees decades ago.
——————————
LOL! Degrees don’t mean much. Even an amateur can see how you are kowtowing to science convention and not arguing a reason why beyond gee: “I think others think that way”. Thats fine astronomy has yet to discover why it must be another way and the convention does no harm.
But conventions are where you look for new discovery and that requires much more than a degree. I have a degree plus over 28 years job experience in natural sciences. Before that I had about a dozen years in physical sciences. . . .engineering in fact.
Job experience is where you learn to apply the tools you learn to earn your degree. Without real world experience you are just flopping like a fish out of water.
So how many years were you employed as an engineer? Doesn’t seem so that you are now. Myself I am still gainfully employed in natural science well into my septuagenarian years.
================
================
E. Swanson says:
Sorry, I’ve pointed out several times that the Moon’s orbit around the common barycenter is an ellipse. Orbital motion is in no way connected to a body’s rotation, which, for the Moon, has been measured with great accuracy.
——————–
No connection? Have you gone mad! they are both caused by the earth’s gravity. That isn’t even a point of contention by anyone but you.
The moon’s motions are completely dictated by possession of linear momentum and the influence of earth’s COG.
You want to say they aren’t connected. Thats the declaration of a madman and like all declarations of madmen you have offered nothing at all in support of the notion.
Hunter wrote lots of stuff again, including:
What hogwash. I never suggested “eliminating the orbit”, only pointing out that the Moon’s orbit and rotation are two separate dynamical processes.
He continues:
I was referring to your previous red herring comment in which “we create a long thread of this inflexible material and attach a large ball at the end of it”. Gravity does not connect the Moon to the Earth via a fixed length, inflexible, solid link. Your model is just another example of pups rotation-about-an-external-axis delusion and can’t be taken as a serious representation of orbital physics.
He also writes:
No, that’s not what I (and NASA) claim. My point is that the mathematical description of the Moon’s motions is best described as an elliptical orbit of the CM due to gravity plus the angular rotation of the Moon around that CM. Do you really disagree with that model, and if so, where’s your alternate mathematical description? Thus far, all you’ve offered is empty word salad.
E. Swanson says:
What hogwash. I never suggested eliminating the orbit, only pointing out that the Moons orbit and rotation are two separate dynamical processes.
====================
Wrong! You eliminated the orbit as part of a single motion influenced by a single force. And you admit it above by claiming its a separate process. And you declare that without evidence.
============
============
E. Swanson says:
I was referring to your previous red herring comment in which we create a long thread of this inflexible material and attach a large ball at the end of it.
=================
Now you are lying. You cast aside both the flexible and the inflexible with your comment: ”Hunter replies to my comment with another red herring about another ball-on-a-string analogy”. . . .that is unless you are now trying to back peddle in that direction.
============
============
E. Swanson says:
No, thats not what I (and NASA) claim. My point is that the mathematical description of the Moons motions is best described as an elliptical orbit of the CM due to gravity plus the angular rotation of the Moon around that CM. Do you really disagree with that model.
=====================
If you want me to comment on that please provide the equation you favor.
Hunter wrote:
the equations were posted above.
swannie…”As I pointed out last month, those circles in your theory must have different radii at Apogee and Perigee. Your claim that the Moon rotates in concentric circles as it orbits the Earth fails to account for these facts. As a result, the rate of rotation about those circles changes throughout the orbit. This is impossible without some torque(s) being to either speed up or slow down your rate of rotation as the Moon orbits”.
***
Nice try, Swannie. I will give you credit for at least trying a rebuttal and to have attempted to understand the significance of radial and tangential lines. Your theory falls short, however, since you are not treating the Moon as a rigid body while treating particles on the Moon as acting independently.
However, my point has nothing to do with velocities, either tangential or angular. I am claiming that three points on the Moon, the near face, the COG, and the far face, are moving along concentric circles therefore they can never change position as would be required for local rotation about the COG.
The mistake you are making is failing to understand that the radial line from Earth’s centre, to which the tangential lines are perpendicular, is turning at an average angular velocity. Every particle on the Moon must move at the same angular velocity if they are to be part of the rigid body.
If you locate the Earth at 0,0 and the Moon at 3 o’clock somewhere on the +ve x-axis, the radial line extends from 0,0 along the x-axis and right through the Moon’s COG. As the Moon moves, that radial line forms an angle, theta, with the x-axis, and it’s range is from y = 0 on the x-axis through 360 degrees or 2 pi radians.
The point to get is that each point on the Moon intercepted by the radial line MUST move at the same angular velocity as the radial line. Angular velocity is the rate of change of the angle a radial line makes with the x-axis. For each point on the Moon the angular velocity is far different than taking the velocity of each point. In fact, the velocity of individual points is irrelevant when calculating orbital dynamics in the manner we are discussing it.
Each point on the radial line from the near side to the far side must move at different speeds to keep up with the radial lines angular velocity. That is because they are part of a rigid body. If they did not move at the same angular velocity as the radial line, the rigid body would fall apart. Other than that, individual velocities have no meaning.
> I am claiming that three points on the Moon, the near face, the COG, and the far face, are moving along concentric circles therefore they can never change position as would be required for local rotation about the COG.
The last bit is false, Gordo.
You should get a word with Kiddo, for you’re saying that the Moon locally translates, and that’s a no-no in his book.
willard…”You should get a word with Kiddo, for youre saying that the Moon locally translates, and thats a no-no in his book”.
***
Who the hell is Kiddo?
And, would you try to offer a scientific rebuttal rather than offering a simple claim of false? My science is sound, if you have a rebuttal, show where I am wrong.
Kiddo’s the guy I keep calling “Kiddo,” Gordo.
As for your “science”:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-875646
willard…”As for your science:”
***
Disproved your rebuttal in a later post.
Proofs by assertion don’t count, Gordo.
Wondrous Wee Willy,
You wrote –
“Proofs by assertion dont count, Gordo.”
You got it half right. There are no “proofs” in science. That concept is put about by dummies like you.
On the other, the supposed effects of the GHE are baseless assertion, start to finish, aren’t they?
So GHE assertions don’t count for anything.
We agree.
Mike Flynn,
Malignant Flamingo,
You say –
“There is no proof in science.”
Gordo clearly said –
“I have proved to you using basic calculus and trigonometry that the Moon is translating with no rotation.”
You should have a talk with him.
Silly Billy Willy,
Calculus and trigonometry are fields of mathematics, and mathematical proofs exist.
You are confused, dummy. Maybe you think Gavin Schmidt is a “climate scientist” because he is a mathematician?
Learn the difference between mathematics and science (if you can – it is not all that difficult), and then try again, dummy.
How’s the search for the amazing elusive GHE going? Have you looked under your asshat yet?
Gordo wrote:
I’m not talking about “each point”, just the points on the surface at the intersection of your radial line with the near side and with the far side. The resulting calculations show that your radial line to the Moon is rotating faster at perigee than at apogee. As a result, for your model to be correct, the instantaneous rate of rotation for the Moon must be greater at perigee than at apogee. But, the very large rotational inertia of the moon requires that the rate of rotation be constant.
Given these facts, your model is wrong.
swannie…”The resulting calculations show that your radial line to the Moon is rotating faster at perigee than at apogee. As a result, for your model to be correct, the instantaneous rate of rotation for the Moon must be greater at perigee than at apogee”.
***
The Moon has no instantaneous rate of rotation about an internal axis. It’s rate of rotation about the Earth is exactly the same as the rotating radial line, both at apogee and perigree.
This has nothing to do with my radial/tangential line inference, that the near side, the far side, and the COG are moving along concentric orbital paths.
“The Moon has no instantaneous rate of rotation about an internal axis”
Strange how all measurements show that it has.
So far you haven’t shown us any measurements.
The gyroscopes on the lunar landers recorded it. Are you suggesting they were wrong?
A simple Foucault pendulum set up on the Moon’s poles would do likewise. Are you suggesting that would not be so?
Only proves that there is rotation about some axis.
A revolution/orbit is NOT the same as a local rotation.
wrt the fixed stars, 1 orbit will not change the orientation of the bodies concerned, only a local rotation will do that.
Both gyroscopes and Foucault pendulums operate wrt the fixed stars.
“Orbiting without axial rotation” involves the object changing its orientation. That is what is being argued by the “Non Spinners”. Therefore gyroscopes and Foucault Pendulums cannot settle the issue.
“‘Orbiting without axial rotation’ involves the object changing its orientation”
Orbiting without axial rotation wrt the fixed stars means not changing its orientation to ‘face’ Earth.
Gyroscopes and Foucault Pendulums operate wrt the fixed stars as I said.
Therefore they are perfectly capable of showing that you are wrong.
Wrong, RLH, and pointless talking to you.
Got to love Moon Dragon cranks:
[KIDDO] Swanson, Folkerts and [Nate] have all argued that [orbit without spin] is purely translational motion.
[GORDO] I proved it further using an airliner orbiting at 35,000 feet around the Equator. It keeps the same face pointed at the Earth and cannot rotate about any axis or it will crash. Therefore, its orbit is purely translation without rotation, as is the Moons orbit.
willard…”[GORDO] I proved it further using an airliner orbiting at 35,000 feet around the Equator. It keeps the same face pointed at the Earth and cannot rotate about any axis or it will crash. Therefore, its orbit is purely translation without rotation, as is the Moons orbit”.
***
Already covered the proof but obviously you were not paying attention. Go to the back of the class.
Take a straight runaway, if you can find one the length of the Earth’s equator. Let the airliner taxi down the runway. No one but a blithering idiot would claim the airliner is not preforming rectilinear translation.
If you now bend that straight line runway around the real Equator, and taxi the airliner around it, you are still performing translation but it is now curvilinear translation. Why can’t textbooks offer an explanation of curvilinear translation like that? Answer: most of them have no idea what it is. They learned a stupified explanation somewhere and repeat their version like a parrot.
While taxiing around the Equatorial runway, the plane now takes off, reaches 35,000 and levels off, maintaining constant velocity and altitude. It is still performing curvilinear rotation WITHOUT ROTATION.
QED #4.
> Why can’t textbooks offer an explanation of curvilinear translation like that? Answer: most of them have no idea what it is.
Oh, Gordo. Here’s a simple refutation of your “demonstration”:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-875646
Also, please have a word with Kiddo. The Moon Dragon position ranges from “pure rotation” to “pure translation.” That’s not optimal to say the least.
C2 is not spinning about its COG. It’s COG is moving along the middle concentric circle while the inner and outer circles represent the motion of the near face and the far face respectively.
What you are seeing is a change of orientation as a property of t.rans.l.at.ional motion. Same thing as you’d see with an airliner orbiting the Earth over the Equator at 35,000 feet.
Tell me, Willard, is the airliner rotating about any of its axes? Hope not, a lot of people would die in the crash.
> What you are seeing
I don’t need to *see* anything, Gordo.
All I need is to feel my hand *spinning* the coin.
Try again!
willard…”All I need is to feel my hand *spinning* the coin”.
***
Your brain is not seeing what your hand is doing. Your mind is conditioned to believe the coin is rotating about its COG but your lack of attention has mislead you.
Look again. At no time does the near face (to the stationary coin), or the far face, rotate around the COG. Neither can, they are both turning in concentric circles inside and outside the concentric circle in which the COG moves.
It’s called translation, Willard. Even Jethro Bodine could have figured that out.
> Your brain is not seeing what your hand is doing
How do you know, Gordo?
Look. It’s quite simple. Do it for real. Put a penny on the table. Try to make it orbit another penny by moving it with your index. A every moment of the motion you’ll see that you need to rotate your index to keep the mark on its rim facing the other penny.
You know why that works that way? Because if you kept pushing in the same direction, you would not follow a circular orbital path. What goes for your finger goes for the Moon.
It is easy to get a feel for physics concept with the body. Try weight exercises. Dance around a pole. Throw balls.
Enjoy life.
Yes, Willard, to make life even more confusing for you, Gordon refers to motion of the MOTL as pure translation. Most “Spinners” have tried to tell him that motion of the MOTR is pure translation. Funny that you are only now noticing all this.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
You and Gordo don’t share the same conception of geometry.
Please accept that you’re a soft non-spinner.
No, I am not wrong in anything I just said.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
Many things you said were wrong.
Starting with how you interpret your silly GIF.
No. Nothing wrong there. I am in agreement with most of the people you respect on this site in the way I interpret that non-silly gif.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
You’re a softie. Moon Dragon cranks like Gordo are the real McCoys here.
OK, Willard.
Gordo, How about a satellite orbiting a few hundred miles above the surface. If it is controlled to follow a path like your airplane, an inertial navigation unit would report that the craft was rotating once an orbit wrt the stars. Do you agree and if not, why not, based on the physics of rotating bodies, i.e., gyroscopes.
swannie…”an inertial navigation unit would report that the craft was rotating once an orbit wrt the stars”.
***
It would show only that the sat was changing its orientation wrt the stars. You know that sats are not designed to rotate about an internal axis. Most of them have antennas that need to point toward Earth.
The NOAA sats that record data for UAH must have their receivers pointed toward the surface. If they were rotating it would lead to chaos.
> You know that sats are not designed to rotate about an internal axis.
Oh, Gordo:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/OrbitsManeuver
Gordo wrote:
I worked for 4 years in the design of satellite attitude control systems and I can attest to the fact that satellites are designed to rotate once an orbit when their mission is Earth observation or communications. And “changing its orientation wrt the stars” at a fixed rate is the physics definition of rotation.
Gordo, you are so wrong that it’s laughable. Of course, you and the rest of the “No Spin” cult will continue to ignore any facts which refute your delusional physics, including my simple calculations which destroy your model.
willard…”C1 and C2 refers to this thought experiment:
Take [Gordos] favorite two pennies example, with a small mark on each of their rims. Call them C1 and C2.
Put C1 in the middle of a table. Move C2 around it so that its mark always faces C1. Do not move C1.
Congratulations! You have spun an object while moving in concentric circle around another one!”
***
C2 is not spinning about its COG. It’s COG is moving along the middle concentric circle while the inner and outer circles represent the motion of the near face and the far face respectively.
What you are seeing is a change of orientation as a property of translational motion. Same thing as you’d see with an airliner orbiting the Earth over the Equator at 35,000 feet.
Tell me, Willard, is the airliner rotating about any of its axes? Hope not, a lot of people would die in the crash.
Oh Gordon! You promised to give it up. Now look at the mess!
Come on, nurse, you’re girdle is too tight.
Oops, another duplicate. First one did not show up right away so I answered Willard’s later post.
> C2 is not spinning about its COG.
That kinda begs the question, Gordo.
Try again.
Wee Willy Wanker,
You wrote –
“That kinda begs the question, Gordo.
Try again”
Oh so profound – not.
And why should he “try again”? Maybe you should try to appear intelligent, instead. Have you tried thinking for yourself, rather than continually demanding that others leap to obey your stupid demands?
So carry on Wee Willy – try again. Maybe you can win the respect of some other delusional fool – like Ken Rice or Gavin Schmidt! Who knows?
Mike Flynn,
Momentary Fanfaronade,
You ask-
“And why should he “try again”?”
Because Gordo pretends to have an argument when he does not!
Simple, isn’t it?
Cheers,
Woeful Wee Willy –
And you think your opinion is worth something because you suffer from a mental defect?
Playing the idiot card just makes you look like an idiot!
How are you doing trying to find out where the GHE may be observed? Not too well I assume.
What a pity.
Mike Flynn,
Mawkish Facetiousness.
“Its COG is moving along the middle concentric circle while the inner and outer circles represent the motion of the near face and the far face respectively”
Gravity acts to make the COG follow an orbit. What makes the near and far side do anything otherwise. i.e. the coin remains ‘facing’ a fixed star. After all the near and far face are parts of the object that make up the COG.
Why is it that the Moon is required to ‘face’ Earth when in an orbit round it but the Earth is not so constrained when in orbit round the Sun?
RLH,
You wrote –
“Why is it that the Moon is required to ‘face’Earth when in an orbit round it but the Earth is not so constrained when in orbit round the Sun?”
One likely reason is that the Moon’s mass is unequally distributed. Gravitometric data indicates that the “heaviest” part of the Moon is closest to the Earth, as the bob of a pendulum is when the motion finally stops – as it does, even in a vacuum, due to unavoidable friction losses. In the case of the Moon, the tidal deformation due to Earth’s gravity, over billions of years resulted in the Moon’s original rotation (presently unknown) slowing, and then stopping entirely.
As to the Earth, its rotation is likewise slowing, due to frictional losses caused by the Moon raising tides in the Earth’s atmosphere, aquasphere, and lithosphere. Given enough time, the Earth will present one face to the Sun, as the Moon presently does to the Earth.
Presumably you have already researched the matter, and discovered these things for yourself, so I am a bit bemused by your question. Why did you ask?
I have answered for the benefit of others who may be mildly curious.
“One likely reason is that the Moons mass is unequally distributed”
Any thoughts on how long that unequal distribution is likely to take in order to effect/cause the rotation? Given the mass of the Moon and its rotational inertia.
RLH,
First, gravity cannot cause a body to rotate directly, for the same reason it cannot cause a stopped pendulum to start oscillating.
How long would it take to bring an unbalanced Moon to a halt?
A long time?
It would depend on processes causing the mass imbalance, initial speed of rotation, initial proximity to the Earth, speed, direction, and mass of collisions with other celestial bodies, and other unknowns.
You seem quite capable of working this out for yourself, so I ask again, why are you asking me?
I suspect you do not think I am a world authority on matters astronomical. Correct me if my assumption is wrong.
Earlier, Woebegone Wee Willy quoted –
“Since the drag of the atmosphere and the tug of gravity from the Sun and Moon alter a satellites orbit, it takes regular adjustments to maintain a satellite in a Sun-synchronous orbit.”
Obviously a mind-bending revelation to Wee Willy.
Witless Wee Willy attempts to appear intelligent by copying and pasting irrelevant information from the internet. Not just a sub-par troll, but a dimwitted one at that.
Wandering Wee Willy would run a mile, rather than answer where the GHE may be observed and measured, which is why he is reduced to copying and pasting irrelevancies. Poor Wee Willy – his pathetic attempts at being gratuitously insulting don’t seem to be annoying anyone at all.
He is surely a mighty hero in his personal fantasy world, but not so much in the real world.
What an idiot he is!
Mike Flynn,
Maladaptive Fastballer,
You almost said something!
Congratulations!
Keep trying,
Whiffling Wee Willy,
I accord your congratulations the same importance as your opinions. None, that is.
Why would I do otherwise?
Keep trying. You might impress somebody, sometime, but I doubt it.
Mike Flynn,
Monolingual Felon,
Thank you for your comment.
Unfortunately comments like yours are received by trulls as high praise.
Don’t feed the trulls.
willard…”Put a penny on the table. Try to make it orbit another penny by moving it with your index”.
***
I have already explained that in great detail. The coins are only a model of the lunar orbit and you have to adjust the moving coin as you move to duplicate the action of gravity on the Moon’s linear momentum.
I explained even deeper using a flat surface. If you wanted to move a coin, on its edge, from A to B on a flat surface, you’d have two options, to roll it or to slide it. If you rolled it, that would represent both translation and local rotation. The mark on the coin would rotate about the COG while the COG translated from A to B. If you slid it, that would represent translation only, with the mark always against the surface.
It follows, that the only way to rotate the moving coin through 360 degrees is to roll it around the perimeter of the stationary coin. The moment you roll it, the mark no longer touches the surface of the stationary coin.
If you now curve the level surface, you can still roll the coin along the curve but you cannot slide it while keeping the mark against the surface, unless you adjust it using your fingers.
With gravity, it is not required to adjust the Moon to keep the same side pointed at the Earth. It simply remains at the same altitude due to its linear momentum while gravity always holds it at that altitude right around the orbit. To the Moon, the curvature of the Earth appears as a straight line, which it follows due to its instantaneous linear momentum. Gravity essentially bends the straight line instant by instant to form an elliptical orbit.
“you have to adjust the moving coin as you move to duplicate the action of gravity on the Moons linear momentum”
There is not such adjustment. Gravity acts to make the ORBIT, i.e. the COG, follow a path. It does act to change the orientation.
> With gravity, it is not required to adjust the Moon to keep the same side pointed at the Earth.
That’s where you’re wrong, Gordo.
Allow Tim to explain:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-877149
Nobody is arguing that gravity provides a torque.
Gordon,
Both coins flat and the axis of rotation is perpendicular to the page.
You have been doing it wrong all along.
” Both Wepster and Mayer were too stupid to understand that libration has nothing to do with a rotating Moon. ”
Yeah: that’s Robertson, the pseudo-engineer.
He never, never and never will grasp that
– the accuracy of Mayer’s computation of the selenocentric coordinates of numerous lunar craters, bypassing by a lot that obtained by Riccioli and Hevelius
IS DUE TO THE FACT that
– he was able to compute Moon’s rotation period and the inclination of Moon’s polar axis wrt the Ecliptic, what made positions of craters on the Moon, for the first time, independent of optical libration effects.
Robertson has never learned anything, doesn’t learn, and will never learn.
But… concerning the lunar spin about an interior axis, he is by far not the only crackpot on this blog.
Ball on string.
Drill a bolt through the ball to represent its axis.
Drill another hole so the string can be tied to the bolt.
Swing the ball around you.
If the ball is rotating on its axis the string will wind around the bolt.
Moon isn’t rotating around its axis.
Here’s a better model, Kennui:
A yo-yo with a string attached to a free ring, so that pulling on a string won’t make the yo-yo wind back. Hurling the yo-yo around it won’t force a direction to its body.
Same with gravity.
> won’t force a direction to its body.
To clarify, I’m referring to the orientation of the body, i.e. the direction of the points within it.
Ken, if the ball is rotating on its axis more or less than once per rev. of the center, then the string will wind around the bolt.
Ball4. You’ve got it right; if the ball is rotating on its axis the string will wind around the bolt. So what do you think will happen?
Ken
Manifestly, you either didn’t read what I wrote, or you didn’t understand even a bit of it.
I really didn’t think you would be ever ready to appear as dumb and ignorant as Robertson, Clint R, etc do.
You were.
Your problem.
“Drill another hole so the string can be tied to the bolt”
That would have to be ‘cut a a disc’, so that the Moon is like a yo-yo.
And the string would have to be attached to the bolt with a loop, same as a yo-yo is.
We’d need a cut disk if the ball did actually rotate.
It wouldn’t. A hole will suffice.
Monday ENSO update
Experts are catching up to upcoming La Nina being stronger than the one last year
https://bit.ly/3oaQjle
Something I first predicted already 4 month ago
https://bit.ly/3zIO4re
“East Pacific Equatorial subsurface Cooling Rapidly…NCEP CFS V2 Now Indicates STRONG La Nina Ahead”
But this is but a small blip in the continuously upwards march of global temperatures. No matter that more or greater La Nina’s mean an overall downwards trend.
Some pretend I would have claimed: No La Nina this year!
What a dumb crackpottery.
I did nothing else than to give a hint on the fact that even if the 2021 edition isn’t the ‘weakest evah’, there were in the recent past some Nina’s with a lot more power, e.g. 2010-2012.
The 2010 edition was extremely stronger than this year’s.
And you best see that by comparing JMA_s global grid surface temperature distribution for August 2021:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y2021/gridtemp202108e.png
… with that for August 2010:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map//gridtemp/y2010/gridtemp201008e.png
*
It’s always funny to note that when somebody reports even a bit of warming during the last two decades, s/he soon becomes discredited ba the ‘Skeptic’s as an alarmist, with in addition the hint: “10,000 years ago, it was warmer.”
But when the temperatures drop a bit, the same people cry: “Oh oh oh! It’s cooler since 2,3,5 years.”
So your 30% chance of a La Nina shouldn’t be taken to mean ‘no La Nina this year/next year’. Good to know.
And even though people are now suggesting that this years event will be stronger than last year’s one, that is not important either.
I noticed you duck and dived on how strong this years event would be, probably in order to say you weren’t wrong later.
C’est La Vie.
It was NOT MY chance, but the forecast of Japan’s Met Agency.
” … probably in order to say you weren’t wrong later. ”
That is typical for you. Always on the road to insinuate something you certainly won’t admit to have been wrong later.
Basta ya.
So Japan’s Met Agency 30% chance of a La Nina shouldn’t be taken to mean that you think that there will be ‘no La Nina this year/next year’. Good to know.
So are you going to suggest how strong this years event will be or not?
So Japan’s Met Agency 30% chance of a La Nina shouldn’t be taken to mean that you think that there will be ‘no La Nina this year/next year’. Good to know.
So are you going to suggest how strong this years event will be or not?
Don’t you boring, retired elementary school teacher understand what
BASTA YA!
means?
¡Basta Ya! (English: Enough is Enough!)
So you are not going to own up that the Japan’s Met Agency 30% chance is going to turn into a full blown La Nina. OK.
Nor are you prepared to suggest if it will be larger or smaller than last year. OK again.
I understand you not wanting to look foolish. You can do that all on your own.
All you post is psychobabble but You can’t predict zshit.
You are Comical Ali of weather forecast
https://i.postimg.cc/Ls15FT07/Baghdadidon.jpg
And you, Eben are exactly the same kind of dumb ass as are Robertson or Clint R…
Believe me: I prefer my psychobabble – just because people like you don’t understand anything of it :- )
“I prefer my psychobabble”
Obviously.
” Bindidon says:
September 27, 2021 at 6:11 AM
Some pretend I would have claimed: No La Nina this year!
What a dumb crackpottery. ”
————————————————-
Except I saved your cocky posts trying to mock my predictions
Ja Ja Ja
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/05/uah-global-temperature-update-for-april-2021-0-05-deg-c/#comment-709017
You lying scum , I forgot to say
UK government is activating emergency measures in an effort to resolve the fuel shortages under “The Downstream Oil Protocol”. As a 1st measure, it temporarily exempts the oil industry from anti-trust rules, allowing it to share information and acting together.
This supply chain energy crisis is happening across Europe. Prices are skyrocketing as a result.
Its a result of the ‘green’ agenda. Example is BP being infested with ‘green’ stockholders and voting to make BP move away from being an oil company. BP used to be a major supplier of gasoline to UK.
That is why the science of climate change in the paradigm of empirical data must usurp the paradigm of climate model projections. Else the crisis is going to lead to a climate change emergency. Then you’re going to have to get your vaccine passport updated to include your personal carbon ration.
Do you see where this climate change claptrap is leading yet?
I’m fourth generation “Oil Field” and my father (whose business I inherited) used to say “we make the most money when there is blood in the streets.” Well, the streets are not running red yet, but business is humming.
Yeah, I’m watching the stripping away of our liberties under the auspices of COVID measures that don’t work. The only way to restore that balance is the tried tested and true method of watering the tree of liberty with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
That tree of liberty is looking parched.
You go right ahead and do what you need to do. I win either way.
p.s.: As one of my sons likes to say “God blessed the USA, God bless the Marines, God help the rest.”
” COVID measures that dont work ”
Don’t you live in that microscopic Island, with at best 300,000 people on it, i.e. 4 people / km^2?
Are you kidding us, Ken?
We are in Germany over 83,000,000 people, i.e. far over 200 / km^2.
Did you ever spend even half a minute about this difference concerning contact frequency?
Why, do you think, is the flu nearly absent in Germany, since everybody wears a mask in shops ans public transport, like is done in Hong Kong since many years?
*
You speak here about the ‘blood of patriots” ? Aha.
Do you know that a student, working in a German gas station, was recently shot dead by one of these Fascists (those which dumbass Anderson names the ‘Leftists’), just because the Fascist pig simply didn’t want to wear a mask?
No, no: the Fascist didn’t ask for the station’s leader in order to kill him, Ken.
He is such a coward that he shot a station’s employee dead instead.
Would you do that too, Ken?
Why are there so many Germans and other Europeans on this site trying to spread Fascism? They gave up their freedoms long ago, and I guess misery loves company.
Bindi,
Do Germans have a right to keep and bear arms? Freedom of speech? Freedom of expression?
Are you kidding us, Ken?
No I’m not kidding.
Preponderance of scientific literature says they don’t work.
Here is one such that was commissioned by WHO:
‘Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare SettingsPersonal Protective and Environmental Measures’ by Jingyi Xiao
Here is another study from Denmark:
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/m20-6817
Patriot is Fascist? Your brains be scrambled by living to close to a wind turbine.
Nonpharmaceutical Measures for Pandemic Influenza in Nonhealthcare SettingsPersonal Protective and Environmental Measures by Jingyi Xiao
I cannot get the link to post here.
Anderson
YOU are here the one who spreads fascism.
And you know that very well, but you are too cowardly to say it clearly.
a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition. ~ Merriam Webster
Bindidon … you need to get your definitions sorted because you are accusing people of being fascist while it is patently obvious that those accusations are simply not true.
Ken has perhaps forgotten that the development of the oil fields in the North Sea resulted in Britain becoming an oil exporter. As those fields have been depleted, now we see that Britain is just another oil importer. The use of “Brent Crude” for setting prices is a leftover from the period as the typical oil field boom-bust development cycle progressed. BP’s reported efforts to shift to renewables may also reflect the reality of global oil depletion as conventional oil production may be past “Peak Oil”.
Britain’s current problems may also reflect the results of the Berxit process, which has been reported to include serious transport bottle necks moving many products across the English Channel, especially agricultural ones.
Its not Brexit; all of Europe is experiencing an energy crunch.
Th UK is experiencing things that the rest of the EU is not. For instance, there are differences between NI and the rest of the UK were NI is closer to Eire (Ireland).
E. Swanson at 9:06 AM
Yes, those are all contributing factors and most importantly, the energy transition will proceed due to both, natural depletion of legacy fields with fewer new discoveries, and rising costs.
Anarchists such as Ken like simple solutions which usually start by blaming a boogeyman. They would blow out the candle and then sit there and curse the darkness.
Whilst we are talking about cosine weightings for Latitude, why is there no Elevation weighting likewise.
The normal adiabatic lapse rate is about 1 C per 100 meters and, for instance, the lower 48 (CONUS) USCRN stations vary from 3m to 9828m in elevations alone.
The obviously should have been 3ft to 9828ft. I keep forgetting that the USA is still imperial.
@Bindidon
the earth is 57,308,738 square miles. There are roughly 30,000 land surface stations globally. They would need to have a measurement range of 1,910 square miles.
do you still want to talk about confidence intervals? Do you believe the 30,000 surface stations more accurately portray the global temperature? Do the land surface stations have better range? How?
To recap:
Bindidon thinks a drifting satellite that can measure the entire globe is less accurate than 30,000 land surface stations, only 7,000 of which have long term records.
It has been shown that 30,000 is about 461 times too many than is needed to get a precise measurement of global temperature.
Some of us like precision better than accuracy.
“…satellites do not provide direct measurements of atmospheric temperature: they are not thermometers in space.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVMsYXzmUYk
Ground based thermometers at the base of the turbulent surface boundary layer are only ever going to be loosely associated with measurements taken by satellites from above that layer.
Point samples with interpolation are not the same as bulk volume measurements either.
What an arrogant twat’s blah blah!
The lower troposphere at which satellites ‘measure’ temperatures (by estimating them out of the brightness of O2’s 60 GHz emissions) is a way way way more turbulent corner than is the surface.
In fact the layers above the surface layer are quite smooth comparatively. That is why weather systems are so linear over such a long distance. In fact this has been exploited quite extensively in weather predictions and forecasts for the last few hundred years or so. It is the local, quite narrow vertically, boundary layer that is so much more difficult to predict.
But what do I know? I am only am amateur after all. I know nothing about all of these things and am completely unable to get data, draw graphs or do anything reliable scientifically at all. Unlike you, great master.
RLH,
If that is so,
How come the temperature trends for the land based and satellite measurements overlap?
Still not explained why mean and median are so different on the ground stations we already have. The difference could be more than the decadal change in some cases.
As to kriging to span great distances, that depends on the spot samples being accurate in the first place.
And it does not cover the differences between ocean and land either.
bob d …”It has been shown that 30,000 is about 461 times too many than is needed to get a precise measurement of global temperature”.
***
If you’re an idiot. How does anyone get a precise measurement of global temperature? Where I live near Vancouver, Canada, temperatures can vary 10C in 60 miles, or 20C within 150 miles, in summer.
To get a fairly precise measurement you’s need a station every 100 sq. miles and every 1000 feet of altitude.
Gordon,
I am not an idiot and it has been shown that less than 100 stations is sufficient for a repeatable global average temperature.
You are guessing.
Kriging will help us solve all of our problems. If we can just get the ‘right’ stations to start with.
Could you be more specific. What accuracy and precision of the global average temperature mean do you regard as acceptable and how many stations do you need to achieve them?
What are the expected deviations both horizontally and vertically so that we can achieve the req
Oops. Posted too soon.
What are the expected deviations both horizontally and vertically so that we can achieve the required Nyquist sampling criteria?
After all the energy equations have the bulk volume of air (with its disparate composition) at one end of the dataset.
EM,
Oooooh! An attempt at a gotcha!!
First, please define “global average temperature mean”, if you really want to be an object of derision.
Make sure to include the defined standards of accuracy and precision.
jay cadbury ‘phd’
” To recap:
Bindidon thinks a drifting satellite that can measure the entire globe is less accurate than 30,000 land surface stations, only 7,000 of which have long term records. ”
Well, let me begin with a bit of polemic: people having earned a phd degree mostly are less superficial than you are, Sir.
Moreover, your claim seems to have little in common with this particular thread, and I suspect that you simply pasted your comment today from an earlier, now somewhat dusty post.
*
1. Where did I ever pretend that
” a drifting satellite that can measure the entire globe is less accurate than 30,000 land surface stations ” ?
NOWHERE.
Years ago, I presented a graph globally comparing UAH 6.0 LT with the area and latitude weighted average of all available stations in the worldwide GHCN daily data set:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1p1Cjw4L7WqCZCGKUnNth1lVwergBk-tt/view
The result of posting that graph was to be denigrated by this blog’s dumbest, most ignorant commenter as somebody presenting ‘faked graph unduly comparing fudged NOAA data with honest UAH data”.
And… what did you at that time, Sir? Where is any trace of a similar job from your side?
How were the reactions to it?
*
2. But the very best is coming now.
” … only 7,000 of which have long term records. ”
So, you really complain about so few stations having long term records, but are quite satisfied about the satellite data having only a poor, short term record of a bit more than four decades?
Do you want to kid us, Sir?
3. To be honest: when looking at what you write, I’m a posteriori quite happy about not having earned any phd degree.
I think Dr. Cadbury thinks what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, Strawman Bindi.
Your bullshit posts are completely useless, Fascist Anderson.
Fascist? It is just attack, attack, attack with you. Anybody who disagrees, attack. You want me locked up, don’t you, Bindi? Who’s the fascist, Fascist? Bindi Goebbels and his strawmen.
Bindidon, Godwin’s Law says you lost the argument.
Thank you Stephen!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
jay…”he earth is 57,308,738 square miles. There are roughly 30,000 land surface stations globally”.
***
According to NOAA they now use less than 1500 stations to cover the land surface. With a land surface area of 57,308,738 square miles, that’s one station every 38,206 square miles.
Don’t tell Binny, he still thinks they use all the stations.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150410045648/http://www.noaa.gov/features/02_monitoring/weather_stations.html
Ha ha haah
Robertson comes again, for the thoudsandth time, with his archived stuff from NOAA, in which they spoke about 4500 of the 6000 stations having been given up because they did not report temperatures automatically.
But on the same page, NOAA told at the same time that they would add numerous new stations.
The archived page is not dated, but since it was first captured by the archive management on March 23, 2010, it was very probably published in 2009.
In 2009! If Robertson is still alive in 2031, I’m sure he will show you the link.
*
Since then, GHCN daily has over 40,000 stations worldwide busy with temperatures:
https://tinyurl.com/w2umyj7x
Robertson can easily see that when clicking on the ‘all’ item (but only Robertson should do that, as all other commenters anyway are sure that these stations really exist).
He thinks namely that most GHCN daily stations are generated synthetically, imagine!
Clint R regularly insults people as being ‘braindead’. That fits perfectly to Robertson.
WAITING FOR GODOT ON THE MOON
[K] If the cannonball does indeed rotate about an external axis
[T] But it does not rotate about that axis
[K] Why does the torque about the external axis not cause the cannonball to rotate about the external axis?
[T] Because that is not how torques work!
[K] So torques do not lead to rotation?
[T] You are getting there. A torque (as calculated about a specific axis) applied to an object leads to a change in angular momentum (as measured about that same axis). This may or may not lead to rotation about that axis.
[K] And gravity is not rigid enough a connection for you?
[T] Absolutely NOT rigid enough! Were gravity “rigid”, it would be impossible for a moon to get further from or closer to its planet, it would be impossible for a moon to do anything besides face its planet.
[K] It only needs to be rigid enough that the torque about the external axis results in rotation about the external axis
[T] But it is NOT EVEN THAT RIGID! There are just not enough ways to tell you this.
Can you jump? Gravity does not hold you rigidly at a specific distance from the center of the earth. Can you do a somersault? Gravity does not hold you rigidly in a specific orientation relative to the center of the earth.
[K] Gravity just connects the cannonball to the center of the Earth. Not rigidly, but rigidly enough.
[T] it would be fascinating to hear your mathematical definition of “rigid enough”. How you you calculate “rigidness” and what value constitutes “rigid enough”?
[K] Think what you want. “Orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTL.
***
That’s it for me. See you next month.
The actual discussion:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-877149
Which shows you are wrong.
OK, RLH.
OK DREMT. We all agree you are wrong.
Good for you all. I am happy for you (collectively).
rlh…”OK DREMT. We all agree you are wrong.”
***
That’s the new science, no scientific method, just agreement.
Apparently your new science is to ignore all other scientists and stick with your tiny, tiny, clique.
RLH,
From time to time “all other scientists” are absolutely, completely, abysmally wrong – as new facts emerge. Recently, for example, “all other scientists” poured scorn on a madman claiming that continents “drifted” here and there.
You can probably think of many more instances. I certainly can.
Facts impress me more than consensus.
Alternatively you are wrong and they are correct. My betting is that they are correct.
“as new facts emerge. ”
Here’s the thing. No new significant facts have emerged about gravity and orbits since the time of Newton. Sure, Einstein refined a few concepts about gravity, and we have refined some measurements. But the solution based on Newtonian Mechanics has bee studied and confirmed.
So when you base your position on “as new facts emerge”, you are saying ‘well, in the future Newton’s Laws might be shown to fail for orbits, and then maybe our solution will be shown right.’
Kepler started/refined the things about orbits. Newton showed how it all worked.
So let’s say you walk along an imaginary track around the equator carrying a model Ferris wheel-type contraption on a frictionless spoke. The cars are attached rigidly, so the ones at the top are upside down. Presumably all agree that if one of the cars has a weight in it, that car will remain closest to the Earth all the way around the journey. So what happens if you do the journey without the weight? Do the “Spinners” believe that the car that is on the bottom to start with, moves, so that it is on the top by the time you are halfway around the journey? So that it remains oriented “wrt the stars” whilst you walk along?
“Spoke” should be “axle”.
DREMPTY,
Yes, why would you think otherwise?
I didn’t say I did think otherwise.
“Do the ‘Spinners’ believe that the car that is on the bottom to start with, moves, so that it is on the top by the time you are halfway around the journey? …
So that it remains oriented wrt the stars whilst you walk along?”
Well, I think you (and other) may be neglecting one little detail, so that question itself is ill-posed.
Your ferris wheel is presumably rotating once every day with respect to the the stars to start. So if you stand still it will rotate once every 23:56 with respect to the stars (ie a spoke that is pointing to a specific star will again be pointing to that star 23:56 later) and once every 24 hr WRT the sun. And not at all with respect to the ground (the spoke pointing down will continue to point down).
If there is truly no friction (from the axle or from air or from anything else) and the wheel is truly balanced, then the wheel will continue to rotate once every 23:56. So there is no need to walk ‘half way around the world”. Simply stand still and the spokes will be point to the opposite side of the celestial sphere.
Alternatively, if the ferris wheel is actually stopped with respect to the stars and “remains oriented with respect to the stars”, then it will be ‘upside down’ in 12 hr with no need at all to walk! The spokes will continue to point to the same stars, and the spokes will point the opposite direction compared to the ground.
Maybe you want to rephrase your question.
Tim, the Ferris wheel is not rotating on its own axis just because the Earth is rotating. The entire Ferris wheel contraption is instead rotating about the Earth’s axis, along with every other part of the Earth, and along with you, the person holding it. Different question, then. If the Earth suddenly stopped rotating, would the Ferris wheel start rotating on its own axis?
I don’t think you still realize that you are contradicting yourself.
“The entire Ferris wheel contraption is instead rotating about the Earths axis … ”
“So that it remains oriented ‘wrt the stars’ … ”
These two statements cannot be true simultaneously. If the contraption is rotating with the earth, and the earth is not remaining oriented wrt the stars, then the contraption is not remaining oriented wrt the stars. You need to clarify your statements to make them self-consistent.
“If the Earth suddenly stopped rotating, would the Ferris wheel start rotating on its own axis?”
Well, I would phrase it as ‘the ferris wheel was initially rotating at 1 rev per day (WRT the stars). If the earth stopped, the ferris wheel would continue to rotate at 1 rev per day (WRT the stars).’
“Well, I would phrase it as ‘the ferris wheel was initially rotating at 1 rev per day (WRT the stars). If the earth stopped, the ferris wheel would continue to rotate at 1 rev per day (WRT the stars).’”
Tim, the Ferris wheel was not initially rotating on its own axis at 1 rev per day WRT to anything. The entire Ferris wheel contraption, plus you holding it, and the ground you were standing on, was rotating about the Earth’s axis. Why can you not grasp this distinction?
“Tim, the Ferris wheel was not initially rotating on its own axis at 1 rev per day WRT to anything.”
or … the ferris wheel was rotating. Period. And it would continue to rotate. Period.
You can tie yourself up in knots with the words, but that is what would physically happen. If the frictionless ferris wheel was changing orientation once every 24 hr WRT the starts when the earth was turning, it would continue to change orientation WRT the stars after the earth stopped.
Consider something more intuitive like two MGR horses. One is clamped to a vertical axle and one is free to rotate on a frictionless axle. Everything starts at rest. When the MGR starts to rotate, the horses will both start to move in a circle (or ‘orbit’) but only one will start to rotate (WRT the ground). If the frictionless horse had its nose pointing north initially, the nose would continue to point north. Two independent motions.
In real life, there would be some sort of friction (or air resistance) and the second horse would eventually start to rotate. Slowly at first and eventually rotating at the same rate as the MGR.
And of course, the same is true in reverse when the MGR stops. The clamped horse will stop with the MGR. The frictionless horse will continue to rotate.
Never mind, Tim. You are not getting what I mean, but it doesn’t matter.
DREMPTY,
What force would be present that would cause it to change its orientation with respect to the distant stars?
Just checking.
Wandering Wee Willy,
You do realise that arguing with yourself results in you perpetually losing the argument, don’t you?
Have you considered learning some physics? It is fairly simple. As Richard Feynman said –
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Or you could just keep arguing with yourself, and keep losing.
Hard decision, dummy?
Geez. The lot of you are …king boring.
So glad we will never meet in real life.
DMT,
Hang on there a second, pardner! A while ago, you said you were “coming for me”.
Now you are saying you are glad we will never meet in real life. Were you lying before, or are you lying now?
Or have you found out who I am, and have now decided that meeting me in real life might well result in serious physical injury to you, should you instigate an altercation, and threaten violence.
Probably best for you to keep choosing boredom. Safer.
I am sticking with +0.15c to +0.20c for the September value.
Oh goody! A guess!
How incredibly, amazingly scientific is that?
And so wonderfully useful, too!
Prediction: The UAH September anomaly is going to be higher than August anomaly.
Basis: RLH hasn’t been pestering the “warmists” for predictions in ever sub thread. Also NCAR daily reanalysis numbers.
You’ve not been concentrating have you? I have already said that I expect it to be +0.2c to +0.25c this month and drop away later next month and beyond. Still inline with my 15 year S-G projections.
Mark B: Any thoughts on the deficiencies in cosine weighting at
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-880977
rlh…”Think of athlete throwing a hammer. Whilst they are joined they rotate about a common center. Once released, the hammer continues to rotate around its own center during its flight”.
***
Not because they were both rotating about a common axis. The hammer rotates due to the handle or chain attached to it.
The idea throwing the hammer is to release the ball when it is tangential to the orbit of rotation with the tangential vector pointing straight down the field where the ball is to be marked for distance thrown. At that point, the chain/handle should be perpendicular to the tangential vector.
However, if it is released exactly at that point, the chain or handle which the thrower is holding begins rotating to get in behind the ball. You can see that on a photo of a hammer throw with a chain. The chain tries to align with the linear motion of the ball and overshoots the linear direction, causing rotation.
Naturally the chain/hammer will continue to rotate about the ball after release, causing the ball to rotate. If you could cut the chain, or disconnect it instantly as the ball reached the required tangential direct, there is no reason why it should rotate.
BTW…the torque applied to a cannon ball comes from friction against the cannon barrel as the ball moves down it. If you had a frictionless barrel, the ball would not rotate.
GR,
You wrote –
“BTW…the torque applied to a cannon ball comes from friction against the cannon barrel as the ball moves down it. If you had a frictionless barrel, the ball would not rotate.”
A ball from a smooth bore cannon will not rotate, nor tumble, in theory. The frictional contact of the ball is equally distributed around the maximum diameter of the ball.
So Newton’s cannonball did not rotate around any internal axis as it emit emerged from the barrel. This was Newton’s point, in explaining that gravity acted on the ball and the Moon in precisely the same fashion. Fired high enough and fast enough, the ball would orbit the Earth, always presenting the same face to the surface towards which it was falling.
Exactly. The Moon is just a big cannonball. Not saying it was fired from a cannon but it acts like a cannon ball that was not rotating about its COG when it left the barrel. Of course, as you say, the cannonball would need to be high enough to escape atmospheric air resistance.
“Fired high enough and fast enough, the ball would orbit the Earth, always presenting the same face to the surface towards which it was falling.”
It would have presented the same face towards a fixed star. There is no mechanism for it to rotate as it orbits.
Orbits are created by gravity. Orientation is caused by angular momentum.
RLH,
No, a non-rotating falling body presents the same face to the surface towards which it falls.
Look at the Moon when it is overhead – it is falling towards you. You always see the same face.
That’s a fact – and a consensus, in all likelihood.
“No, a non-rotating falling body presents the same face to the surface towards which it falls”
So a non-rotating body rotates. Well done.
P.S. The Moon is not falling directly towards you. It is falling towards something that is over the horizon. It’s called an orbit for a reason.
RLH wrote earlier –
“P.S. The Moon is not falling directly towards you. It is falling towards something that is over the horizon. It’s called an orbit for a reason.”
Nonsense. The idea of the Moon orbiting as a result of celestial beings, or “falling towards something that is over the horizon” is one that Sir Isaac Newton put to rest.
The Moon is continuously falling towards the Earth – the COG , if you like. The surface gets in the way, of course. As Newton eloquently pointed out, the Moon falls at about 1.25 mm/sec. towards the surface. Luckily, it is also travelling at about 1 km/sec in a straight line.
Amazingly, just enough that the Moon doesn’t fall to Earth, and is only receding from the Earth very, very, slowly. How’s that for good luck?
If you have defined the Moon to be rotating around its axis, that is your right. Climate cranks define slow cooling as an increase in temperature, so anything can be defined as anything else with a bit of effort!
Swenson,
You are not being very precise in your language, but that’s the usual schtick with you.
“The Moon is continuously falling towards the Earth – the COG , if you like.”
Really?
What about the half of it’s orbit where it is receding from the Earth, or falling away from the Earth.
“Not because they were both rotating about a common axis”
When they were attached there was a common axis. When they are detached there is not.
binny…”Why, do you think, is the flu nearly absent in Germany, since everybody wears a mask in shops ans public transport, like is done in Hong Kong since many years?”
***
Why, despite wearing masks and practicing social distancing is covid still hanging around? Why do countries like Sweden who have never enforced such Draconian measures have no more deaths than the UK or the US?
Why is there an increasing number of infections in people with two vaccinations? It’s called breakthrough infection and it is far from insignificant?
I think we are being had by a massive fraud perpetuated by hysterical politicians and weirdos who wanted to see the world change in their favour.
Covid exists and kills people. So your wild suppositions are wrong.
Robertson
Again and as usual, you are simply lying.
” Why, despite wearing masks and practicing social distancing is covid still hanging around? ”
WHAT?
The contrary is the case, Robertson!
Covid is hanging around everywhere BECAUSE lots of contrarian people do NOT wear masks.
They even begin to kill persons in Germany politely asking them for doing that. And the German right-wing, fascist and neonazi people applaud this murder online.
Concerning Sweden, you are thinking too simple about a complex matter (nothing new for you, of course).
The fact that Sweden has just as many infections per million inhabitants as Great Britain and has slightly fewer deaths is due to fewer accompanying, Covid-promoting diseases such as in Italy and the USA, for example.
In conclusion, let me assume, Robertson, that if there were only mindless contrarians like you on Earth, there would be many more Covid deaths than officially recorded so far.
Populations density will influence the rate of infection with covid
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_population_density
Sweden is in 200th place.
To continue on with comments about cosine weighting, why is it that the available solar energy in the USA is as below
https://imgur.com/oOFZF2d
If cosine weighting was the only thing that was driving things, then the map should have simple bands North-South when in fact there is a significant West-East component too.
Why?
For those who wish a more detailed and authorative source for the solar map
https://imgur.com/P7TvO0y
From https://www.nrel.gov/gis/solar-resource-maps.html
Operation EPIK FAIL
Be afraid. Be very afraid. : )
The cooling waterz of NINO 3.4 just dropped below 0.5 ,
You can mark your calendar as a start of the LaNina
https://i.postimg.cc/FF0XvDVs/28nino34.png
Shhh. Don’t tell blinny.
Pasted from above, merci RLH:
” Be afraid. Be very afraid. : ) “
“Pasted from above”
Are you a right wing nutter?
If you say so, if you say so!
You re-posted my comment about right wing nutters being afraid. Was that just opportunistic instead?
I didn’t read the comment you replied to.
That’s not surprising at all. You not bothering read things I mean.
Do you think it is finally going to happen; the UAH monthly anomaly will fall below zero on the old 1981-2010 baseline?
Well according to the ‘experts’ we will experience an overall decline in temperatures for the next 5 months or more (based on reactions to ENSO) so it still remains quite possible.
bdgwx
Do you mean right now, for Sep 21?
With a displacement of 0.17 C (the greatest of the 12 months) and +17 C wrt 1991-2020 in Aug, that would mean a drop of 0.34 C.
Maybe! Tout est possible.
To the “Grrrand Coooooling Aheadddd” genius
It’s nice to provide information about the 3+4 tidbits, but a quick look at what’s going on around this corner certainly won’t hurt that much :- )
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/glbSSTSeaInd3.gif
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/glbSSTSeaInd4.gif
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/glbSSTSeaInd5.gif
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/glbSSTSeaInd6.gif
You can easily see how the corner Bob Tisdale named the ‘Pacific Blob’ will develop.
Oh I forgot! Only information about cooling is of interest!
Apos.
Some of us just deal with the data as is happening. Others moan about things not being predictable at all.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_30day_large.gif
So you don’t believe that global temperatures follow the ENSO with about 5 months delay?
https://i.postimg.cc/FF0XvDVs/28nino34.png
(See above)
As usual, rlh’s fingerprint: asking merged with insinuating.
Of course I do believe that ‘global temperatures follow the ENSO with about 5 months delay’.
But that does not at all mean I would trust in anything told here by people like Eben or… you.
Or ENSO sites other than the Japanese one apparently.
Wrong.
This is the fun part with climate cranks like Dumbdidon, they will reject everything because of who said it, not because they understand it.
That’s why when the forecast he mocked turns out 100% accurate he looks like a total dumb ass.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-750377
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-751594
@bobdroege
461 into 30,000 is about 65 stations. They would need a measurement range of 881,672 square miles. Do you and Bindi believe in the Easter Bunny too? That’s a nice opinion that 65 surface stations can measure the whole planet.
You just need the ‘right’ stations apparently. For the 30% or
so the land covers.
Kevin Cowtan explains why having the ‘right’ stations can be better than ‘more’ stations in the absence of proper station weighting here:
What does the ‘mean’ in ‘global mean surface temperature’ actually mean?
Who decides what the ‘right’ stations are? Ones that conform to your own expectations only?
Cowtan’s explanation of how to do statistics misses out on a few important steps.
In order to do a representative (sub-)sample you first need to establish what the deviations are across the sampled volume (if we are talking about global air temperatures, TOA to surface).
Rather obviously taking temperatures at ~1.5m above ground limits what you can discover. Not adjusting those to a common vertical offset does likewise (~1C per 100m vertically). Not noting that ground and ocean have very different characteristics is another problem. As is North/South global land/ocean distribution.
So between all those (amongst others), reducing the ground stations coverage from 83% to 18% is only likely to increase the uncertainty, not reduce it.
Global mean surface temperature is literally in the title of the presentation, so most of your response is a little silly in that context.
Cowtan does note that land vs ocean is an issue, but as a complexity outside of the scope of this particular presentation.
What he is addressing is some hazards in taking a straight average of stations and in assuming more stations is necessarily better than a more uniform distribution even with fewer stations.
It’s not an opinion.
It’s what research shows.
Are you guessing how many are needed?
If you accept that kriging the data from land provides a correct global answer without any stated confidence bands.
Since the actual question you want answered is how fast is the temperature changing?
You don’t need kriging for that.
Kriging is good for mining, how is temperature different from that?
bobdroege
The reason to use an interpolation technique for temperature averages is that if you distribute all observations over a grid, you immediately see that there are lots of empty cells.
For GHCN daily, you obtain about 2,200 2.5 degree grid cells busy with the data of in the sum 40,000 stations; but that’s way less than the +- 30 % expected in theory.
If you now compute the global average, you obtain values within which each empty cell has the same “value” as the global average.
That is of course ‘plain wrong’.
Kriging is by far the best interpolation technique.
If you now estimate the global average from incomplete data you are in effect multiplying the actual values as measured by some modelled value to obtain a ‘whole’.
You may claim that the modelled values is correct (well you would wouldn’t you) but you have not proof of that. It’s purely a model after all.
Kriging in mining says if it is likely there will be good digging at spaces in-between actual samples. It does not guarantee that there will.
Bindidon,
“If you now compute the global average, you obtain values within which each empty cell has the same “value” as the global average.”
I wasn’t suggesting that this be done.
Well, jay cadbury: Nick Stokes has a PhD too, in Physics.
And he knows lots, lots and lots more than you could ever accumulate about surface stations.
Years ago, he has shown a set of 60 stations well distributed around the Globe, and whose average gave a surprisingly good fit to some averages made out of all available ones:
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2011/03/area-weighting-and-60-stations-global.html
But… Why the heck am I so pretty sure that you doubt about his results?
If look back in the threads, it is already admitted that if you cluster all the thermometers together in a limited way then it is very unlikely you will be able to determine the whole picture.
Try all together in a corner on the floor (30% of the area) of a warehouse with a deep wet floor when trying to estimate the bulk air temperature of the whole thing.
Add in limited energy input that has hot at the center and freezing at the extremes and see how well you can do then.
Mind you, there are those who claim that such limited stations clustered on land can provide global bulk air figures and be very accurate about those.
But they would wouldn’t they.
jay cadbury
Did you ever read Cowtan and Way 2014?
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/qj.2297
Or did you only read guest posts discrediting the paper without having understood even a bit of it, especially how they use the technique of kriging?
Do you understand that kriging is only a model and in mining it is designed to only improve chances, not determine if things are actually there?
Maybe you finally start REALLY reading Cowtan, instead of desperately trying to teach the world.
Maybe you ought to understand that kriging is only a model.
Latest data from AIRs
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/airs6.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/airs7.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/ersst.jpeg
Made clear that the USCRN graphs are for average daily and monthly data
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uscrn-contiguous-daily-values-1.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uscrn-daily-values-3.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uscrn-monthly-values-2.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uscrn-contiguous-monthly-values-3.jpg
Earth is warmer because Earth rotates faster and because Earth*s surface is covered with water
We had to answer these two questions:
1. Why Earth*s atmosphere doesn*t affect the Global Warming?
It is proven now by the Planet*s Mean Surface Temperature Equation calculations. There aren*t any atmospheric factors in the Equation. Nevertheless the Equation produces very reasonable results:
Tmean.earth = 287,74 K,
calculated by the Equation, which is the same as the
Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K,
measured by satellites.
Tmean.moon = 223,35 K, calculated by the Equation, which is almost identical with the
Tsat.mean.moon = 220 K, measured by satellites.
2. What causes the Global Warming then?
The Global Warming is happening due to the orbital forcing.
And what keeps Earth warm at Tmean.earth = 288 K, when Moon is at Tmean.moon = 220 K? Why Moon is on average 68 oC colder? It is very cold at night there and it is very hot during the day
Earth is warmer because Earth rotates faster and because Earth*s surface is covered with water.
Does the Earth*s atmosphere act as a blanket that warms Earth*s surface?
No, it does not.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“There aren*t any atmospheric factors in the Equation.”
Sure if Christos ignores the opacity of the atm. then there is no GHE “blanket that warms” in the eqn.
“Tsat.mean.earth = 288 K,
measured by satellites.”
No Christos, 288K is measured by thermometers of the GHCN on Earth surface; the satellites use radiometers.
Please, why do you think, the same equation theoretically calculates so much precisely for the planets without-atmosphere, and that includes for Earth and Titan too?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
9. Titans (Saturns satellite) Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.titan
So = 1.362 W/m (So is the Solar constant)
Titans albedo: atitan = 0,22
1/R = 1/9,5826 = 1/91,826 = 0,010890
Titans sidereal rotation period is 15,9 days
Titan does N = 1/15,9 rotations per day (synchronous rotation)
Titan is a rocky planet, it has atmosphere of 95% N2 and 5% CH4, but very opaque. Titans atmosphere is 8 times larger with respect to square meter planets surface compared to Earth, so we consider Titan a gaseous planet and Titans surface irradiation accepting factor Φtitan = 1.
Titan can be considered as a liquid methane ocean planet,
Cp.methane = 0,4980 cal/gr*oC
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal it is the Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴, a Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Titans Without-Atmosphere mean surface temperature equation Tmean.titan is
Tmean.titan = [ Φ (1-a) So (1/R) (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Τmean.titan = { 1*(1-0,22)*1.362 W/m *0.010890*[150 *(1/15,945)*0,4980]∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/mK⁴ }∕ ⁴ =
Tmean.titan = 93,10 K
Tsat.mean.titan = 93,7 K (- 179,5 oC)
Titan has an atmosphere of 95% N2 nitrogen plus 5% of greenhouse gas methane CH4. Titan has a minor greenhouse effect phenomenon. This phenomenon is so insignificant that it hasnt appeared in calculations.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“why do you think, the same equation theoretically calculates”
Christos, the formula you are using wherein “There aren*t any atmospheric factors in the Equation.” is the 1LOT planetary energy balance using the known planetary albedo and insolation for any planet. Ignoring Titan’s atm. opacity, as you do, roughly works on Titan because Cassini’s radiometer observed Titan surface brightness temperatures at 19 microns where globally Titan’s atm. opacity is at a minimum so, knowing that result beforehand, you adjust your fudge factors accordingly.
More accurate atm. physics considering the pressure induced atm. opacity of the IR active molecules in Titan’s atm. show Titan’s GHE “blanket that warms” (Christos’ term in quotes) for surface median brightness T to be about 12K above the radiometer planetary median effective brightness temperature.
I’ve previously given you the ref. where the atm. physics is discussed in much more detail from which you can learn about all this.
“knowing that result beforehand, you adjust your fudge factors accordingly.”
Ball4, I have not adjusted anything. I have discovered a New equation for planets without-atmosphere mean surface temperatures.
When applying the New equation for Earth and Titan case, the results are almost precisely matching those measured.
What else one should conclude – there is NO +33oC GE on the Earth surface.
Please, point to me out what you think I have adjusted in the New equation calculations. For every and each planet the New equation terms are always the same…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
What else one should conclude – there is NO +33 (degree) C GE on the Earth surface when one admits: “There aren*t any atmospheric factors in the Equation.” thus Christos’ eqn. can find no atm. GHE even when it exists.
Christos, if you go read & understand the ref. I gave you, then you will find that including the natural opacity of an atm. does not need your fudge factors phi and beta that you adjust to include the physics of atm. opacity on planetary median surface T.
Properly used, the 1LOT thermodynamic energy in vs out balance will calculate from first principles, with atm. opacity included, the observed ~12K GHE of Titan, the ~510K GHE of Venus (iteratively), Mars ~5 GHE. There is little unknown or mysterious about these basic energy balances but you need to have studied & passed the course pre-req.s to fully understand the calculations & be able to adequately discuss them on a blog.
“For every and each planet the New equation terms are always the same…”
No, you clearly avoid each atm. IR opacity & adjust your fudged parameters phi and beta at each object (to simulate the atm. opacity) to obtain the already well known answers.
Here, for instance Christos, as a thought experiment your atm. physics Prof. might have an exam question requiring students to replace the natural atm. of Titan with an earthen atm. at 1bar surface pressure and Titan albedo at the orbit of Titan.
Your Titan surface temperature will calculate the same answer using your eqn. & you will get zero honor points on your exam for that question. Using the proper 1LOT energy balance with the earthen atm. IR opacity, Titan insolation, and Titan albedo would adequately calculate the required answer & earn Christos some honor points.
Ball4
“No, you clearly avoid each atm. IR opacity & adjust your fudged parameters phi and beta at each object (to simulate the atm. opacity) to obtain the already well known answers.”
“…adjust your fudged parameters phi and beta at each object…
beta (β) has the same value for every celestial body, thus you are not justified saying beta (β) is adjusted…
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal it is the Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
And there are six (6) objects with Φ = 0,47 and the rest are with
Φ = 1.
How do you say I have adjusted something to obtain well known answers then…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
0.47 is your fudge factor to give the right answer to equal earthen thermometer measurements & it didn’t work for Titan so you simply used another fudged number. Beta is fudged together from a mix of numbers that fit the solar system planetary curve. Another solar system with different illumination may not even come close to your 0.47. N&Z did a much better job of curve fitting & they did not ignore planetary atm.s as did Christos.
If you are interested in actually learning about first principle planetary atm. optics, then I’ve already given you the reference to start to study the basic principles.
You have made a fundamental mistake that only an amateur could make.
You have assumed the solar constant is a true constant for all planets.
IN FACT THE VALUE OF SOLAR CONSTANT YOU USE IS THE VALUE THAT APPLIES ONLY TO EARTH
i.e. there is a different value for each planet depending on its average distance from the Sun.
That is just one of several errors you make.
“IN FACT THE VALUE OF SOLAR CONSTANT YOU USE IS THE VALUE THAT APPLIES ONLY TO EARTH”
studentb, pls check where Christos has placed the decimal point for Titan insolation.
Hint: Titan’s insolation is about 1% of earthen insolation.
studentb
I do not use solar constant for every planet, I am correcting every planets solar flux by using the distance square inverse law
S = So*(1/R)^2
Please take notice in the New equation I use everywhere.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
christos…”I do not use solar constant for every planet…”
***
Christos, pay no attention to studentb and ball4. Both are trolls pretending to be academics.
don’t know if this will translate or be rendered correctly by wordpress.
Χρήστο, μην δίνεις σημασία στο studentb και στο ball4. Και οι δύο είναι τρολ που παριστάνουν τους ακαδημαϊκούς.
If Titan is 1% of Earth, then the value should be about 14 W/m2.
How do you explain using
So = 1.362 W/m ?????
You are out by a factor of 10
“About 1%” over the multiannual orbit cycle which is very long for Titan. Christos used a static radius R.
Glastonbury Festival: Traces of drugs found in river at site
Yanks have flouride in the water, brits have urine.
Thanks, great stuff!
maguff…”The study found MDMA concentrations quadrupled the week ”
***
Some idiot likely got big bucks for doing that utterly useless study.
Quadrupled??? That likely means MDMA went from 2 parts per trillion to 8 parts per trillion. They were likely hiding behind a tree and spotted someone peeing in the river. Then they rushed forward and collected a sample in a still pool where the urination took place.
More likely, they were the ones stoned on both MDMA and cocaine and peed straight into a bottle.
Claiming the levels are dangerous is just sheer idiocy. It’s a flowing river, presumably, heading toward the sea. How about places in the world where the dump raw sewage straight into the ocean?
US temps
1. Below is a link to a comparison of three monthly time series integrating CONUS and Alaska, with anomalies wrt the mean of 2016-2020 (a period chosen to have as many USCRN stations as possible with sufficient data for anomaly construction):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rR0iPUIam7Y3-FRcc-b2fqMZ5OL2Dm52/view
– monthly averages of daily evaluations of USCRN hourly data,
here : mean aka (TMIN+TMAX)/2, from all active stations;
– monthly averages of GHCN daily data (idem);
– UAH 6.0 LT “usa49” (displaced with its own mean for 2016-2020).
For the surface stations, area and latitude weighting were applied.
The latitude weighting is exactly the same as that I use when generating time series out of their 2.5 degree grid data, e.g. above NINO3+4 (5N-5S — 170W-120W):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uChXaEBXhQCulNM78bdzxtHab4U-Qw-s/view
*
2. In the comparison graph, the leftmost part of the USCRN plot is not very significant; this is due to a lack of active stations in USCRN’s early phase:
Year / Stations / Grid cells (2.5 degree)
2001 8 4
2002 25 17
2003 44 34
2004 71 57
2005 79 65
2006 87 72
2007 106 88
2008 117 97
2009 119 99
2010 121 101
2011 122 102
2012 125 105
2013 126 106
2014 129 109
2015 131 111
2016 133 113
2017 133 113
2018 133 113
2019 132 112
2020 133 113
2021 133 113
In comparison: the same data for the active GHCN daily stations in each year
2001 5812 219
2002 6054 219
2003 6313 219
2004 6434 219
2005 6536 221
2006 6626 221
2007 6737 222
2008 6842 222
2009 7010 223
2010 7075 223
2011 7311 224
2012 7330 224
2013 7270 224
2014 7274 222
2015 7293 224
2016 7313 223
2017 7304 223
2018 7314 224
2019 7342 221
2020 7371 224
2021 7133 223
*
3. In fact, it would have been more correct to reconstruct UAH’s absolute data using climatology and anomalies wrt 1991-2020, and to generate from scratch anomalies wrt 2016-2020 out of that absolute data.
But the difference is surprisingly small.
*
4. The difference, within the daily evaluations of USCRN’s hourly data, between ‘mean’, ‘median’ and ‘full 24h average’ exists
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfJM5XjD6Rm7THgMXMJw05xelfKERO0x/view
but would not be very perceptible on the graph comparing CRN with the two other time series.
*
5. I would have expected a far higher discrepancy between the 12 month running means for USCRN and GHCN daily.
*
6. Caveat: Of course, the GHCN daily stations do not exist: they were generated synthetically (including errors like Celsius-Fahrenheit bumps, of course).
Sorry, the comparison graph was not up-to-date.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KYHQ4lcwMxpbFp3T4ruvqIFRmiH2_EhS/view
is the correct revision.
Sources
1. USCRN
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/products/hourly02/
2. GHCN daily
https://tinyurl.com/w2umyj7x
3. UAH 6.0 LT “usa49”
https://tinyurl.com/2h5w8uy5
(data column 26)
Why are you still using (Tmin+Tmax)/2? You know it is inaccurate.
No, it isn’t. That is your claim, a claim you until now gave no valuable proof for:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VfJM5XjD6Rm7THgMXMJw05xelfKERO0x/view
Blinny: Do you need me to add the 20% and 80% percentiles to these to make things clearer for you?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uscrn-daily-values-3.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uscrn-contiguous-daily-values-1.jpg
Do you acknowledge that Tmean and Taverage for most USCRN station are different? In some cases by quite a margin.
Mind you, you could just ignore that and claim that Tmedian is also faulty so just accept the errors in Tmean as unremarkable.
Do you even understand what U shaped daily/yearly distributions do to the statistics involved? Do you care?
U shaped daily distributions such as these
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04140_lewistown_42-wsw.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04237_quinault_4-ne_profile.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04223_darrington_21-nne_profile.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/53927_stillwater_5-wnw_profile.jpg
Why would you think that means (or medians) would give any valuable insights into those?
rlh…”Why are you still using (Tmin+Tmax)/2? You know it is inaccurate”.
***
Isn’t it obvious by now? Binny is an idiot.
As in Bindidiot.
Blinny relies WAY too much on excel and the graphs and statistics draws.
” Do you acknowledge that Tmean and Taverage for most USCRN station are different? In some cases by quite a margin. ”
I have explained ad nauseam that these differences are biased by spatial dependencies, AND also by temporal ones, as you can see here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cTYEKhHGKB-nu8-QUiYJyFFd9ZrKSB_A/view
You are ONLY considering those single stations which perfectly fit into your ideology, and keep pretty good silent about the rest.
Did you forget the difference between Alaska and Florida stations?
Manage to extract these dependencies out of the time series, and than come back to us.
No wonder that Robertson loves you!
You behave exactly as he does.
“I have explained ad nauseam that these differences are biased by spatial dependencies”
And you would be wrong in that. They are to do with the U shaped distributions involved. Do you understand anything about those types of distributions? Anything at all?
That is why I switched to percentile distributions which are much better suited to display that type.
“You are ONLY considering those single stations which perfectly fit into your ideology, and keep pretty good silent about the rest”
Sure. That is why these 2 graphs display ALL of the stations involved.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uscrn-daily-values-3.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uscrn-contiguous-daily-values-1.jpg
And still you use your imperfect ‘daily out of hourly’ data even though you know it is wrong.
Spatial as in Latitude? Such as these?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/latitude-winter.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/latitude-summer.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/latitude.jpg
They show that, at best, only a small percentage of the differences are Latitude related.
No nice forecast for Iceland:
https://tinyurl.com/3xmwpubm
I suppose that there is some high pressure area above Greenland, turning CW and thus building, together with the CCW turning low pressure area above Iceland, a nice polar air aspirator.
Gracias no, no thanks, we have suffered enough this year in Western Europe from these wonderful aspirators.
earth.nullschool.net shows it better I think.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-16.08,65.46,1322
Interesting fact: the death rate due to covid is about 3 times higher in counties with a large vote for Trump, compared to those counties with a large vote for Biden.
Darwinism at work?
Tragic but, at the same time a useful process for the benefit of the country as a whole.
prof p …”the death rate due to covid is about 3 times higher”
***
3 x a very small number is still a small number. Here in BC, Canada, the number of deaths is 0.035% of the population. 3 x 0.035 = 0.11…roughly.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/210909/dq210909b-eng.htm
“From March 2020 to the beginning of June 2021, there were an estimated 23,547 excess deaths in Canada, or 6.7% more deaths than what would be expected were there no pandemic, after accounting for changes in the population, such as aging. Over this same period, 24,910 deaths were directly attributed to COVID-19. While COVID-19 deaths were still observed, significant excess mortality has not been observed nationally for the total population using the provisional death data since February 2021.”
rlh…I gave the percentage of deaths here in BC.
I am aware of the excess death stat but I don’t trust the governments statisticians. Here in BC the government had to backtrack by claiming there was a 99% vaccination rate with young people.
They have been lying to us all along
Are you aware that in certain countries, they don’t allow autopsies, claiming they are too dangerous for spread of covid. How convenient. They throw out a number for the deaths and no proof the person died of covid. The US is riddled with such bs stats.
In the UK, a death can be claimed as covid even if the person tested negative. Same in the US. The criterion comes down to whether that person was in contact with someone who had tested positive in the previous 30 days.
I know we disagree on this and that’s OK with me. I was reluctant for the longest time to declare covid a fraud but now I am leaning toward that claim. The WHO is corrupt and so is the US CD.C. The WHO is so corrupt they support China.
I have known the CD.C has been corrupt going back to the days of HIV. When the HAART antiviral drugs were introduced in the 1990s, the number of AIDS deaths had been dropping naturally. Suddenly they began increasing after the introduction of HAART because the antivirals were killing people while creating AIDS-like symptoms.
The CD.C solved that by moving drug-induced AIDS deaths into another category called IRS, even though the drug companies in their data sheets admitted IRS is drug-induced AIDS.
Paranoia does not make you sensible. Quite the opposite.
testing 123
That is the most intelligent post you have ever made.
you don’t know the half of it. I had to fool the system because it claimed I had already made that post. Note the ingenuity that went into adding 123.
Because I am so good looking people tend to write me off as just another pretty face. Little do they know the sheer brilliance and lack of ego that goes on below the surface.
I give internet lessons , only $100 per hour
Got change for a $300 bill?
GR,
Lots, all in 7 razoonik coins.
trouble posting…hope this does not duplicate a previous post currently sailing aimlessly around the Net.
part 1…
rlh..”Covid exists and kills people. So your wild suppositions are wrong”.
***
I have acknowledged several times that a contagion related to pneumonia is killing a tiny fraction of 1% of people in most populations. Although it’s reasonable to p.resume a virus is involved, no one has p.roved that by physically isolating that virus. Therefore the tests are invalid as are the vaccines.
The p.roof of isolation of covid is based on an ad hoc method Luc Montagnier (credited with discovering HIV) devised. He admitted in an interview that he has never seen HIV. In the same interview video there is a cap.tion from his electron microscope technician confirming that, at no time, did they see HIV. Montagnier admitted to inferring HIV and when the theory was introduced in 1983, it was introduced without peer review.
SFSG..part 2…
Because he could not see HIV on an EM, he devised an inferential method to claim a virus and that method is still used to claim covid exists. Covid, which is SARS, has been around for a long time, and it traditionally p.roduces symp.toms no worse than the flu. That’s still true of the 2019 variety even though, for some reason, a tiny fraction of 1% of people get hit seriously.
That is not unusual. In 2016, in Italy, 25,000 people died from the common flu. The covid ‘whatever’ that hit Italy severely in 2020 was mainly in the Milan area where Milan has a reputation as being the most polluted city in Europe. Therefore people in Milan would appear to have lung issues related to pollution. Couple that with seniors and you have a recipe for the disaster they experienced.
All I am claiming is that politician over-reacted in a frenzy of hysteria. Countries like Sweden who had no lock downs fared better than the UK and the US where lock downs were in place. The WHO over-reacted, as is typical for them and sp.read the nonsense that asymp.tomatic people are sp.reading covid.
Let’s have some science, please. Traditional theory in epidemiology is that asymp.tomatic people do not sp.read infection. Yet, based on one idiot in Germany, who THOUGHT he observed an asymp.tomatic woman from Wuhan, China sp.read the infection, the WHO took his word for it and sp.read the p.ropaganda to the US CD.C. Turns out the woman had been taking flu medication.
Now we have vaccine passports for the unvaccinated based on sheer pseudo-science. But, the last laugh is occurring now. Thousands of vaccinated people are contracting covid and testing positive. Naturally, the CD.C has taken steps to limit the number reported by confining the numbers to only those who show serious infection.
don’t know how that works. Can’t post the entire post but break it into two parts and it posts.
Zero information content plus zero information content still equals………………zero information content.
Blinny can do 0% information content as well.
tim…”You never specifically say which way the moon is oriented. It seems you are saying that one specific point on the moon faces forward while a different point 90 degrees way always faces along the radial line…”
***
The near face always points along the radial line at any point on the orbital path. With a circle, the radial line always points to the Earth’s centre. It’s not much different with the slightly eccentric orbit of the Moon with the exception that the radial line points slightly to the side of Earth’s centre.
One problem for me is imagining an eccentric orbit with far too much eccentricity. Remember, the lunar orbit is very close to round. If we drew the orbit to scale, with the Moon and the Earth drawn to scale, it would become far more apparent.
We need to remember as well that the Moon is not following a prescribed orbital path, like a locomotive on an elliptical track. The orbit does not exist except for a series of instantaneous moments. The Moon is creating the orbital path as it moves.
So, take the position of the Moon at any one instant and the near face is pointing always at the Earth. That’s the position of the Moon as it tries to move along a linear, path wrt to the Earth. As it moves, it is moving through a gravitational field, not the single vector depicted in physics freebody diagrams between the Moon’s COG and the Earth’s COG. In fact, the gravitational field spreads out around the Earth like an infinitely dense series of spokes.
The Moon is trying to move through that field in a linear direction but the field has the effect of slightly bending the linear path instant by instant, and eventually into an elliptical orbit.
There is no need for local rotation, to explain the constant re-orientation of the near face. Even though the orbit is elliptical, the orientation is always toward the Earth just as an airliner flying at 35,000 feet along the Equator always has it’s bottom side always pointed toward Earth. It’s not rotating.
You have probably heard that a circle, or any curve, can be represented as a series of miniscule straight lines. A perfect example is the Earth’s surface. It is essentially a circle around the equator but that circle is made up of a series of tangential plains which are obvious to the eye as flat regions, especially on the prairies.
I don’t think you’d have a problem with an airliner flying across a prairie region, maintaining a constant altitude. You might agree that is rectilinear translation. However, if it flies far enough, even the prairie will curve with the Earth’s surface. Therefore, over a good distance, the airliner is following a curved surface without the pilot having to adjust for the curve.
Gravity does that automatically, both for the airliner and the Moon. That’s because gravity applies a constant force and the airliner has to supply forward power so its wings will give the lift necessary to counter gravity and keep it at a constant altitude.
Same with the Moon. It’s as if the Moon is flying across a series of flat surfaces with those surface having gravitational force that keep it at a relatively constant altitude. So, the orbit is a resultant path between gravity and the linear momentum of the Moon. As I tried to explain, with an elliptical orbit, that balance can change slightly wherein the Moon’s momentum has slightly more effect, and the orbit becomes more eccentric.
Robertson is again and again lying.
He has been contradicted dozens of times about his permanent lies, but continues spreading them all the time.
He must spend hours and hours in front of his screen, monitoring what people say, writing over-long diatribes which are total rubbish.
Obviously does not have much of a life.
binny…”He has been contradicted dozens of times about his permanent lies, but continues spreading them all the time”.
***
I just consider the source, an ad hom machine who uses insults when proved wrong, which is often.
Figured out the errors in Mayer’s analysis yet? As an Excel expert, you should be able to replicate them easily. Can you imagine what Mayer would have given for a modern computer and a copy of Excel?
Mayer did a far better job of mapping out the Moon’s orbit and with his work on maps and clocks. He should have left the myth of the Moon’s rotation to physicists like Tesla who understood the physics.
” I just consider the source, an ad hom machine who uses insults when proved wrong, which is often. ”
And that is written by a pretentious ignoramus like Robertson, who is above all this blog’s greatest ad hom specialist.
He dared to name great persons like Andrew Motte, Newton’s official translator, “a cheating SOB“.
And such a dumb ass speaks of ‘ad homs’…
binny…”He dared to name great persons like Andrew Motte, Newtons official translator, a cheating SOB”.
***
A cheater is a cheater, you know. You cheat on your Excel graphs that show no difference between UAH series and the fudged NOAA surface series.
” ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ is motion like the ‘moon on the left’ ”
This ‘definition’ has an obvious flaw. The ‘moon on the left’ is moving in a perfect circle, so by definition orbits must be circular!
Until DREMT (or anyone else) can give a generalization for ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ for an ellipse that predicts an exact orientation for a ‘non-rotating’ moon, this is a useless ‘definition’
Sure some waffle and say ‘its only sort of like that’ without being able to quantify how it would be different. Sure, some have tried by saying “one point on the moon always the moon always points toward the planet” or “one point on the moon always the moon always points forward along the orbit”. But both of these are wrong. These get libration wrong.
And if you your theory doesn’t agree with the universe, then it must be discarded.
tim…”Until DREMT (or anyone else) can give a generalization for orbital motion without axial rotation for an ellipse that predicts an exact orientation for a non-rotating moon, this is a useless definition”
***
Already been done. I gave an in-depth explanation of solving the path of the Moon on an elliptical orbit that explains libration at the same time. You were the one who initiated the conversation about elliptical orbits and prompted me to investigate.
Hopefully you understand that the tangent line to any curve at any point on the curve can be calculated using a circle of radius, R, where the circumference of the circle matches exactly the curve at a point, P. Once you calculate the circle radius direction, you have both the radial line to the curve at point P and the tangent line, which is perpendicular to it.
With an ellipse, it’s easy to find the radial line and the tangent line. You draw lines from each focal point to the orbiting object at point, P, then bisect the angle. The bisector is the radial line and a line perpendicular to it at P is the tangent line.
The tangent line gives the direction and path of the Moon’s instantaneous linear momentum at any point on the ellipse. It also gives the rate of change of the orbit at that point.
Do that for the Moon at any point on its elliptical orbit and you can see how the Moon keeps the same face pointed toward Earth without local rotation. It’s all translation.
With a circle, the radial line always points to the circle centre. With an ellipse, it points slightly askew of Earth’s centre, which is located at the principal focal point. Because it is askew, we can see more around the corner. Libration!!!
With the Earth at the principal focal point, you can draw a line from Earth’s centre to Moon’s centre to represent gravitational force. However, given an elliptical path, only a component of gravity is acting on the near face. One component is along the radial line we calculated and the other is at right angles to that radial line, pointing back to Earth’s centre.
Obviously, because the eccentricity is small, the angles formed are small and the component on the Moon near side is almost that of gravitational force, however, there is a small but significant change in the gravitational effect on the near face. Still, with the Moon’s constant linear momentum that slight change in gravity allows lunar momentum to have more effect, producing the eccentricity in the orbit.
“Already been done.”
With all due respect — nope!
I am with you up thru “The tangent line gives the direction and path of the Moons instantaneous linear momentum at any point on the ellipse. ”
You never specifically say which way the moon is oriented. It seems you are saying that one specific point on the moon faces “forward” while a different point 90 degrees way always faces along the “radial line” (the angle bisector. Like like a car driving around an elliptical track or the moon sliding along a rail).
“Because it is askew, we can see more around the corner. Libration!!!”
But this is not quite right. Consider the moon starting at perigee (nearest to the earth). Your model predicts the moon has turned 90 degrees when the moon has travelled 1/4 of the DISTANCE around the orbit. In fact, the moon has turned 90 degrees when it has traveled 1/4 of the TIME around the orbit.
Your model does predict libration, but it predicts the wrong amount of libration. It is a clever approach. It is kind of intuitive. But it is wrong.
I predict that the moon will change orientation at a more constant rate whilst moving through its orbit at varying rates. Still one single motion, “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
“Still one single motion, ‘orbital motion without axial rotation'”
Which actually rotates wrt the fixed stars.
…but not on its own axis.
I don’t understand how two motions with two rates can possibly be understood to be “one single motion”.
Also, until you can quantify “more constant” and how “varying”, you have no idea of your predictions match Newton’s Laws or not.
I don’t understand how you don’t understand. It’s not two motions just because you say it’s two motions, or because you find it easier to understand that way. Until you can tell me how you think an object that is rotating about an external axis (and not rotating about an internal axis) in an elliptical pattern should remain oriented whilst it moves, then you can’t tell me that the way the moon moves doesn’t “fit” with the “Non-Spinners” understanding of “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
“but not on its own axis”
It rotates wrt the fixed stars. Around an axis though its center. If that center also moves in an orbit it does not change what was said before.
It changes what is meant by “orbit”.
“It changes what is meant by ‘orbit’.”
No, it simply doesn’t agree with what *you* mean by orbit.
Everyone else is quite content to define “orbit” as the path traced out by the COM of an object. The orientation is considered an independent issue. And everyone else is capable of precisely predicting both the position of a moon AND the orientation of a moon using this definition.
You want to define some ‘joint motion’ where orbit means “following an elliptical path AND some associated direction for the physical object. This simply does not work as easily nor as accurately as the ‘standard’ definition.
As far as I’m concerned “orbit” only has one meaning and it’s you “Spinners” that are trying to change it.
“and it’s you ‘Spinners’ that are trying to change it.”
And by “you spinners” you mean every scientist back to and ncluding Newton. You are welcome to join yourself to medieval thinking, but don’t expect others to join you.
No, Tim, I don’t mean that.
Whether you realize or not, that is indeed what you mean. You seem fixated on some ‘cosmic merry-go-round disk” or some ‘cosmic ball on a string’. Everyone else left this model behind centuries ago. Moons are not swept along, ‘naturally’ spinning like horses on a merry-go-round.
No, Tim, I don’t mean that. I don’t think most scientists even think about "what is orbital motion without axial rotation?" Things are just done a certain way to conform to a standard. But I think that the more people get back to questioning "what is orbital motion without axial rotation?", the more people would realize that it is as per the "moon on the left". Thinking that it is as per the "moon on the right" is really quite silly.
“Things are just done a certain way to conform to a standard”
Sure. Idiot.
Yes, sure. I’m glad you agree.
Not big on irony are you?
“I dont think most scientists even think about “what is orbital motion without axial rotation?””
Every physics major things about this at one time or other.
“Things are just done a certain way to conform to a standard. ”
That standard is “the universe”. Certain rules (Newton’s Laws) prove remarkably good at predicting the motion of objects in the universe in a wide range of settings. Those rules let us predict the motions of moons, planets, and stars (as well as balls on strings and merrygorounds).
You can’t predict anything (other than perfectly circular orbits).
* Can you derive elliptical shapes for orbits?
* Can you derive “equal areas in equal times”?
* Can you predict the speed of stars across the moon’s skies throughout the lunar month?
* Can you show that the moon has both orbital angular momentum and spin angular momentum?
Every physics major learns to do these things (and more). Until you can do these within your ‘model’ you are not even the the same league as the people you are trying to oppose.
tim…”you have no idea of your predictions match Newtons Laws or not.”
***
Tim..I mistakenly replied to your post in this thread in the thread previous to this one.
The only applicable Newtonian Law is Newton II…f = mg. There is a flaw in Newton II, as written. The force must be able to accelerate the mass for it to apply.
With the Moon, it has such a large mass and momentum at right angle to the f of Newton that f is unable to accelerate the Moon toward Earth. All it can do is bend the linear trajectory of the Moon into an eccentric path.
In doing that, the Moon always keeps the same face to the Earth but the orientation of that face changes through 360 degrees of bend. Just like an airliner flying at constant velocity at 35,000 feet around the Equator.
The bending is not local rotation since the near face and the far face always move in parallel, again, like an airliner.
Because the bent path is eccentric, that explains libration as well. As I pointed out, a radial line from the tangential plane of the near face points slightly away from Earth’s centre, therefore we can see a few degrees around the edge of the Moon.
“There is a flaw in Newton II, as written. The force must be able to accelerate the mass for it to apply.”
ABSOLUTELY WRONG. I don’t even know where to begin. The moon acclerates toward the earth with a value of about g/3600. The speed of hte moon doesn’t change this fact.
“As I pointed out, a radial line from the tangential plane of the near face points slightly away from Earths centre”
And as I pointed out, this would cause libration, but the wrong sort of libration. The direction of this ‘radial line’ does NOT indicate the direction taht one specific point on the surface points.
tim…”Until you can do these within your model you are not even the the same league as the people you are trying to oppose”.
***
That does not mean they are right. Take the nonsense about the Big Bang, I am sure many of the physics students to whom you refer above have accepted the theory based on an appeal to authority but the theory is obvious nonsense. No one has ever demonstrated matter, especially of that degree, suddenly appearing out of empty space.
They would also likely accept Einstein’s theory of time dilation, again, based on an appeal to authority. Physics students are not taught to think for themselves on such matters, only to accept. Even Einstein, when defining time, referred to it as the ‘hands on a clock’.
That is utter stupidity and it came from Einstein. A clock is a machine designed to track the rotation of the Earth. A clock neither reveals time nor does it measure time, it measures the period of the Earth’s rotation.
In fact, time does not exist, it is an illusion created by the human mind due to the mind’s ability to store information. In the mind, the past is based on how memories are stored and the future is a projection based on those thoughts in memory.
Einstein really screwed up with his thought experiment re time dilation yet he is worshipped by many a physics student. Only people who are willing to assess the nonsense that he has produced via thought experiments, like Louis Essen, inventor of the atomic clock, has been willing to reveal them.
I think Newton was a far superior scientist than Einstein. Newton performed his own experiments whereas Einstein did thought experiments only.
Only Nicola Tesla has taken the time to question the dumb theory that the Moon rotates exactly once per orbit. Does it not strike you as questionable that such a condition would exist? What are the odds? Turns out they are immensely against, the Moon does not rotate locally.
tim…”ABSOLUTELY WRONG. I dont even know where to begin. The moon acclerates toward the earth with a value of about g/3600. The speed of hte moon doesnt change this fact”.
***
s = 1/2at^2….s = distance traveled.
That means if you have an acceleration in the direction of s = distance, you must cover a distance. Since f = mg, the distance must be in the direction of the force, therefore, the lunar orbit would have to decrease in the direction of s, which would mean a reduction in altitude.
The only acceleration that can occur is in the direction of f, which is vertically toward Earth. There are no other force vectors to cause an acceleration in any other direction. Since the Moon’s orbit does not change its vertical altitude, that means there is no acceleration due to gravity in a vertical direction.
Ergo, f is not large enough to move the mass of the Moon vertically.
rlh…”It rotates wrt the fixed stars. Around an axis though its center”.
***
I have already demonstrated that the near side and the far side of the Moon move along concentric orbital paths. It is not possible to rotate locally under those conditions. What you describe is not rotation but the product of a rigid body undergoing translation in an orbit. Same as an airliner maintaining 35,000 feet around the Equator.
Do you think the airliner is rotating about a local axis?
Tim wants to pretend that being a “Non-Spinner” is to disagree with Newton and Kepler on orbits. No, Tim, that is not the case. RLH didn’t get that he was the butt of the joke.
Gordon, the reason Moon does not move to Earth is that gravity is not the only vector acting on it. As you’ve mentioned before, Moon has linear momentum/velocity. That is the second vector acting on Moon. The resultant of the two vectors produces Moon’s orbit, and prevents Moon from “falling” to Earth.
And Folkerts, you’re still confused about orbital motion and angular momentum. These things have been explained to you numerous times, but you just can’t learn….
The model for “orbital motion without axial rotation” is the ball-on-a-string. Moon does NOT have orbital angular momentum. It has linear momentum. It is NOT rotating, so it has ZERO spin angular momentum. Orbiting does NOT produce rotation.
Clint R is so confused that Clint posts up 5:14pm our moon “orbits Earth in the same time it takes to spin once around its rotation axis” then writes “so (our moon) has ZERO spin”. No one should ever believe Clint R when it’s so entertaining reading about Clint’s confusion as pointed out by many commenters here including Tim.
Gordon, please find any freshman physcs text and study the chapter on circular motions. You have a few correct ideas mixed in with several misconceptions, and there is not nearly enought time to explain this in a tangent to a blog post.
Folkerts blusters: “Gordon, please find any freshman physcs [sic] text and study the chapter on circular motions.”
Folkerts, you won’t learn much about orbital motion in freshman physics. Orbital motion is not covered under kinematics, kinetics, or circular motion. Orbital motion is a science of its own.
That seems to be your problem. That’s why you make so many mistakes. You’ve never studied orbital motion.
Then there’s the fact that you can’t even spell “physics”….
CLINT: Pretty much EVERY freshman physics textbook has a chapter on circular motion, gravity, adn orbits . You might know that it you ever too the course.
One of many examples of orbits covered in Freshman Physics:
https://openstax.org/books/university-physics-volume-1/pages/13-introduction
Folkerts, quit your cult tactics. You don’t understand orbital motion.
* You claim Moon is rotating about its axis. (Easily disproved.)
* You claim Moon has orbital angular momentum. (Easily disproved.)
* You believe in the “tidal locking” nonsense. (Easily disproved.)
You don’t understand, and you can’t learn.
DREMT wants to pretend that he understands something that every physics prof somehow missed. That every NASA engineer missed. Your Nobel Prize is waiting!
Desperate stuff from Tim.
Folkerts keeps trying to distort reality.
The ball on a string is a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation’. One side of the ball always faces the inside of its orbit. That’s what Moon does. Folkerts keeps trying to distort that reality.
And, he still doesn’t understand libration. After all of the examples and explanations, he still can’t understand that libration is NOT an actual movement. It is only an illusion caused by Moon’s orbit.
Folkerts can’t learn.
Clint R
YOU: “Folkerts can’t learn.”
Wrong, he has learned quite a bit of actual physics. You are the one incapable of any learning. You are a closed off mind deluded by its own smug confidence. You are unwilling to even attempt to consider all your points are wrong and you don’t understand anything and are unwilling to learn.
No Clint R. You, Swenson, and Gordon Robertson are the ones unable to learn. You are given multiple lines of thought and still unable to learn.
I am certain that if a camera was put on one pole of the Moon and pointed to a fixed star and all the other were shown to circle around the one star you still would not accept it.
I have provided you with information on the Command Module which clearly shows that the Moon rotates as the Module orbits but you are not willing to accept this as possible.
No information will change your smug confidence. That is why you are unable to learn.
Norman, your camera on the Moon would indicate orbiting. Your understanding of the Command Module indicates you don’t understand the Command Module.
Does the ball-on-a-string “rotate about its axis”?
“Does the ball-on-a-string ‘rotate about its axis’?”
Does the ball-on-a-string have anything to do with orbits? NO.
Here’s more reality for you to deny, RLH.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-781680
More science for you to deny also no doubt.
Clint R,
What’s the matter?
You didn’t read your second source all the way to page 89?
Oh good, braindead bob is back! He’s always good for a laugh.
While Norman and RLH avoid answering the simple question — “Is the ball-on-a-string rotating about its axis?” — braindead bob claims the ball is rotating about its axis.
The only problem is that if the ball were rotating, the string would wrap around it.
braindead bob enjoys being braindead.
Hey Clint R,
You linked to a source that says the Moon is rotating on its axis.
Only braindead posters link to sources that say the Moon is rotating, I guess that puts you in the braindead camp.
I guess that means if the Moon is rotating on its axis, so is the ball on a string.
But the ball on a string doesn’t wrap around the string, unless you stop the ball from rotating.
No one expected you to understand, braindead bob.
Almost all of academia claims Moon rotates. But the ones I linked to state that the ball-on-a-string is a model of orbital motion. So when I claim the same thing, Norman, RLH, and others realize their cult is trapped. So they simply deny the ball-on-a-string.
You, however, are so braindead you’re stuck with the inconsistency.
That’s why you’re braindead.
“the ball-on-a-string is a model of orbital motion”
The ones you linked to are either incorrect or you misinterpreted their statements.
A ball-on-a-string is NOT a model of orbital motion. At all.
Clint R,
“But the ones I linked to state that the ball-on-a-string is a model of orbital motion.”
Your sources do not say the ball on a string is a model of orbital motion.
Just stop.
So who is braindead and who is a lying sack of bovine excrement?
Hint: I am braindead and you are the other one.
Now braindead bob is denying the links, just like RLH. Here are the exact quotes, along with the links:
“Orbital Motion is much like a ball whipped around on a string”
https://people.astro.umass.edu/~tripp/a101fall08/lectnotes/a101lect13_f08.pdf
“Sort of like balls on strings, but there are no strings”
https://www.unf.edu/~n00006757/astronomylectures/ECP4e/First%20Lectures/Newton's%20Laws,%20Motion,%20and%20Gravity.pdf
“For Newton’s cannonball, the Earth provided the acceleration. For a ball on a string, the tension in the string provides the acceleration.”
http://www.eg.bucknell.edu/physics/astronomy/astr101/specials/newtscannon.html
Feel free to twist and distort as much as you like. No one expects braindead idiots to accept reality.
Yes Clint, good find, now Clint R is finally forced to agree as Clint’s own link shows p.89: our moon “orbits Earth in the same time it takes to spin once around its rotation axis” just like Clint’s ball-on-string does to keep the string from wrapping the ball.
Sorry Ball4, but bob already tried that perversion, above. You need to come up with something original.
Of course, originality is hard for braindead cult idiots, huh?
It’s ok to read Clint can agree with bob and most others since Clint R now posts up facts about our moon “orbits Earth in the same time it takes to spin once around its rotation axis”. Just like Clint’s ball-on-string does as observed by the operator.
The internet never forgets.
Sorry Ball4, but that’s just a restatement of your last failed effort. Coming up with something new is so hard when you’re braindead, huh?
Try again. Who knows? You could get lucky.
Then it’s plain to see Clint R really does believe Clint’s own source writing our moon “orbits Earth in the same time it takes to spin once around its rotation axis” since Clint R does not deny that fact & I’m happy the internet will not forget.
Clint R,
Hey Clint R, I don’t see the word “model” in bold type in your post.
I wonder why.
I also wonder why you clowns can’t find sources that support your case.
Wait, I know why.
Reality don’t support your case.
Bites, don’t it?
Page 89 anyone?
Oh, I see Ball4 has already busted you on that one.
Sorry Ball4, but that’s not any better.
Try this — Keep making comments all night, and I’ll respond if you have anything intelligent.
Great, no denials from Clint R that our moon “orbits Earth in the same time it takes to spin once around its rotation axis” because there can’t be any as Clint now knows from agreeing with the source Clint posted up. Nice job Clint, I knew you could find such a source.
The question someone needs to answer is how stupid is Clint R?
No one seems capable of being that dumb in reality so he must just be messing around for the fun of it.
His link clearly states the Moon rotates once per orbit around Earth and yet he thinks other posters are perverting what it does clearly say. No one can actually be this stupid, can they? Clint R must be some type of comedian coming here to get material for his comedy routines. Like his like-minded previous poster that found everything “hilarious”
Exact words from Clint R link (also talks about tidal locking and how it works): “…it orbits Earth in the same time it takes to spin once around its rotation axis”
Help us all with such severe level of stupid posting.
There is a contest to see what the next global temperature anomaly will be. How about a contest to determine which of the three posters posts the dumbest comments. Who votes for Clint R, Gordon Robertson, or Swenson?
Once again Norman, all that rambling nonsense is only your worthless opinions. Opinions ain’t science.
Try some science — Is the ball-on-a-string rotating about its axis?
Yes, the ball-on-string is rotating once on its axis per rev. as observed by the operator (or the string would wrap) just like Clint R posts up about our moon “orbits Earth in the same time it takes to spin once around its rotation axis” in Clints simple analogy. Way to go Clint, I see you understand a little bit more about physics now and the internet will never forget.
Norman, don’t forget your homework: Is the ball-on-a-string rotating about its axis?
You’ve said you want to learn science. It’s time to put up or shut up.
“Is the ball-on-a-string rotating about its axis?” yes according to Clint R. Good linking Clint.
norman…”I am certain that if a camera was put on one pole of the Moon and pointed to a fixed star and all the other were shown to circle around the one star you still would not accept it”.
***
Better still. Mount a search light on the near face and another on the far face, both pointing at the stars, and see what kind of pattern they would create. If the Moon was rotating about a local axis, viewed from the stars, you would see both search lights rotate around the the Moon’s axis.
As it stands, what you would see is two lights moving in concentric circles around the Earth, tracing out a pattern like a railroad track.
Gordon, you just need to read and learn from the link posted by Clint R 5:14 pm showing our moon “orbits Earth in the same time it takes to spin once around its rotation axis” to keep the same man in the moon face toward the center of the orbit. There are pictures to look at so even you can understand and don’t remain confused about the subject.
Gordo wrote:
Yes, Gordo, if one observed the Moon from a fixed location in space, one would see your search lights rotating around the Moon. That ‘s almost exactly what an “observer” located on the Sun would see, which is the reason differing sides of the Moon are illuminated during the Moon’s orbit around the Earth.
Of course, the “you” which Gordo intends to select, is an observer on the Earth, which would find the “search light” on the near side appearing at a nearly fixed location during the orbit. Gordo’s comment is just another version of the claim that the Moon doesn’t rotate because we can’t see that from here.
“The ball on a string is a model of orbital motion without axial rotation”
No it isn’t. It is a model of a ball on a string.
Nothing to do with orbits or orbital mechanics.
RLH doesn’t have a workable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. So all he can do is bad mouth the correct model.
RLH has “model envy”.
Clint R has NOTHING but his own fantasies to support him.
RLH, are the number 1 troll again?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-827783
No you are.
Tim,
You wrote –
“But both of these are wrong. These get libration wrong.”
From Wikipedia –
“In lunar astronomy, libration is the wagging or wavering of the Moon perceived by Earth-bound observers and caused by changes in their perspective.”
Perceived.
Maybe you could explain what is wrong with the Wikipedia definition of libration?
Or are you complaining that DREMT has provided a simplified definition of something? As to ellipses, Newton showed that planetary orbits such as the Moon, must be elliptical, based on his laws of motion and gravity. The Moon is in free fall towards the Earth. Its orbit is elliptical. A circle is an ellipse.
If you want to reject reality, do so. I accept Newton’s Laws (on the macro scale, at least), because nobody has been able to demonstrate otherwise. What are your objections based on?
Nothing is wrong with that definition.
The issue is that we perceive a very specific libration. Any model for the moon’s orbit must match the observed ‘wobble’. You can’t just say “well my model creates some sort of libration, so that is good enough’.
Gordon’s model (as I understand it) doesn’t match the correct libration.
“As to ellipses, Newton showed … “
Yes, Newton’s Law indeed predict that orbits are ellipses (and also that the moon will sweep out equal areas in equal times). It is a simple consequence of conservation of angular momentum and the fact that gravity does not provide a toque on the moon. [Ignoring the tiny tidal forces for now.]
Newton’s Laws ALSO predict that the moon rotates with respect to the stars at a constant rate. Also because of conservation of angular momentum and the fact that gravity does not provide a toque on the moon. This rotation rate about its own axis is INDEPENDENT OF the motion of the center of mass around the elliptical orbit.
So it is not that I am ‘rejecting Newton’s Laws’. Rather, it is that you are only accepting Newton’s Laws half of the time.
“Newtons Laws ALSO predict that the moon rotates with respect to the stars at a constant rate. ”
No they do not. Newton would NOT have agreed with you on this.
Newton’s Laws don’t predict a specific rate, but they do predict that the rate (whatever it is) will be constant during the orbit. There is no torque about the COM, so the angular momentum and angular velocity remain the same.
This is “Newton’s 1st Law for Rotation”.
Agreed.
tim…”There is no torque about the COM, so the angular momentum and angular velocity remain the same”.
***
The Moon has no angular momentum, that would require a mass with an angular velocity around a curved path. If you had a ball attached to a rigid spoke and the spoke’s other end was attached to an axle, the ball would have angular momentum because its velocity is constrained to a circular path.
The Moon is not constrained to its orbital path and stays in orbit only because there is a balance between gravitational force and the Moon’s linear momentum. If you stuck a mass in its way, a couple of things might happen. If the mass was large enough to stop the Moon’s linear momentum, or to slow it sufficiently, the Moon would come under the influence of gravity and crash into Earth. In any event, it would begin accelerating in free fall toward Earth.
If the mass was not sufficient to stop the Moon or slow it appreciably, the Moon would glance off it, like a snooker ball, and head out of orbit. A body, like the ball described above, could not move off in another direction or collapse into the axle. It would smash through, stop, or bounce back with angular momentum in the opposite direction.
Folkerts and RLH are confusing Newton with Kepler. They are often confused, but incapable of learning.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint has clearly never derived Kepler’s Laws from Newton’s Laws, so he apparently thinks they are two separate, unconnected ideas.
Kepler came first and setout orbits. Newton came later and confirmed that gravitational attraction proved that orbits as described by Kepler made sense.
“If Keplers laws define the motion of the planets, Newtons laws define motion. Thinking on Keplers laws, Newton realized that all motion, whether it was the orbit of the Moon around the Earth or an apple falling from a tree, followed the same basic principles”
Folkerts tries to pervert reality, but gets corrected by RLH!
Folkerts isn’t fooling anyone except poor Norman.
Clint R attempts to pervert science. But gets corrected by everybody.
RLH, do you believe lying makes you a better troll, or is prevarication just all you’ve got?
You are the one who lies and disputes competent scientists without any proof. Not me.
RLH
I agree with your correct assessment of Clint R. Either a comedian or idiot. This one believes the very valid radiation heat transfer equation is not valid. Goofy lunatic. His points are very poorly thought out.
clint…”Folkerts and RLH are confusing Newton with Kepler”.
***
Major difference. Newton was a true physicist as well as a mathematician. Kepler got all his data from Tycho Brahe and used math to work out relationships in the data.
Norman, were you ever able to figure out the temperature of the outer sphere?
No, because your invalid equation is invalid.
Clint R
For once try to use a little rational logic thought.
Why would the heat transfer equation determine the temperature of the outer sphere in your post? The temperature of the outer sphere is size dependent and can be many different temperatures. The heat transfer equation can precisely tell you how much energy the inner sphere will lose as heat if you know the temperature of the outer sphere. If you don’t have the data on the outer sphere temperature you can’t calculate the inner sphere heat loss. With the equation it does not matter the size of the outer sphere, only its temperature. The equation is not designed to figure out the temperature of the outer sphere, the equation is quite valid. The only invalid in this is your rational thought and your lunatic posts. They are almost childish in reasoning ability. Again are you really that stupid or is this your idea of fun?
Wrong again, Norman.
The distance to the outer sphere determines its temperature. Your invalid equation overlooks the “Inverse Square Law”.
But, it gets worse. Different fluxes do not add or subtract, arithmetically. Your invalid equation attempts to subtract different fluxes.
Your invalid equation is a double fail. 50 thousand links to invalid physics is NOT science.
Where is your homework:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-884916
Clint R
Your confident but stupid ignorant declarations do not make you intelligent. You have NOT found flaws in good physics. You have only demonstrated you are too stupid to understand things and make up idiotic points and declare them.
The equation is valid, is used has been tried tested and true. You do not understand fluxes or physics or how anything works. You are also too smug and ignorant to consider the reality that you are very stupid and incapable of grasping concepts.
And no it does not matter how large the outer sphere is, it will deliver the same amount of energy to the inner sphere regardless of size. You are not able to trace straight lines from the outer sphere to the inner sphere.
Correct declaration. You are a dumb yet arrogant person who has a false sense of their own intellect. You are basically just really stupid. Someday you might see this but it is most unlikely. You will continue to think stupid ideas are good and you are smart. Weird delusion land you live in.
Again with the insults and false accusations, Norman. You apparently have no interest in growing up.
The distance to the outer sphere determines its temperature. Your invalid equation overlooks the “Inverse Square Law”.
But, it gets worse. Different fluxes do not add or subtract, arithmetically. Your invalid equation attempts to subtract different fluxes.
Your invalid equation is a double fail. 50 thousand links to invalid physics is NOT science.
Where is your homework:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-884916
tim…”Nothing is wrong with that definition.”
***
Sure there is, they talk about waggling and wavering, and the Moon does neither. It’s not about perception either since we can actually see a few degrees around the edge of the Moon.
With regard to my perspective, I am talking only about longitudinal libration. The wiki is seriously messed up about this, talking about a physical libration, which is nonsense. The effect of the Moon on Earth’s oceans is only about 1 metre but that metre of draw causes greater tidal effects horizontal to vertical draw. The effect of the Earth on the Moon would not cause an appreciable tilt to the lunar surface.
Earlier, bobdroege wrote (in a fit of stupidity) –
“Swenson,
You are not being very precise in your language, but thats the usual schtick with you.
“The Moon is continuously falling towards the Earth – the COG , if you like.”
Really?
What about the half of it’s orbit where it is receding from the Earth, or falling away from the Earth.”
Yes, really. Just as Sir Isaac Newton concluded and explained – including pictures for those who needed them! Presumably, you do not understand how Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation applies. The Moon does not “fall away from the Earth”. It falls towards the Earth continuously, never reaching it. As to “what about half of it’s [sic] orbit where it is receding from the Earth”, this is your attempt at precise language? Didn’t you learn how to compose a good “gotcha” at Dimwit U?
You are not only ignorant, but stupidly so.
Run away, little bob. Learn some English, learn some physics.
“It falls towards the Earth continuously, never reaching it”
So the concept of it facing in the direction it falls toward is towards the place over the horizon which it is continuously falling towards, not the surface immediately ‘below’ it at any instant then.
RLH,
No, the direction in which it is falling is not a concept, it is a reality. And of course, the Moon is falling towards the COG of the Earth.
And yes, that is the surface directly below it. You can redefine “below” to mean “above”, “in front of”, “behind”., or whatever you wish. It won’t change the operation of Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation.
Maybe in your universe, gravity operates differently. In mine, if you are “below” a falling piano, you are in trouble. If you are above it, not so much.
Here’s a minor tip – anyone who starts their attempted rebuttal with “So”, and finishes with “then”, is usually trying to convince their audience that a fantasy is fact. Just another of Witless Wee Willy Willard’s “silly semantic games”.
Try physics instead.
Swenson,
Try specifying that the Moon accelerates towards the Earth.
Then you won’t look like a buffoon.
And Newton’s universal law of gravitation only tells you the force between two object.
It does not tell you about the position, velocity, acceleration or whether something is falling towards something else.
You may not be stupid, but you seem to know little of physics.
bob,
Maybe you have heard of “acceleration due to the force of gravity” with respect to the Earth? Acceleration can be calculated quite simply (if you know the universal gravitational constant, of course).
The Moon’s acceleration towards the Earth is about 1/3600 th of that experienced on the surface of the Earth. Look it up if you think I’m wrong, and apologise if you like.
If you don’t believe that the Moon’s acceleration towards the Earth is “falling”, then maybe you could describe the celestial being which propels the Moon towards the Earth.
Here’s Merriam-Webster’s definition –
” to descend freely by the force of gravity An apple fell from the tree.”
And of course, the Moon is descending freely – in “free fall” – nothing impeding it.
I assume you are engaging in pointless silliness to avoid accepting the fact that the tidally locked Moon is not rotating about an internal axis.
… as observed from our tidally locked moon.
The Moon’s mean orbital velocity is about 1.02 Km/s also. So it’s constantly falling towards a point over the horizon, not actually towards the Earth itself.
P.S. The Moon rotates once on its axis pre orbit of the Earth. 1/35 (approx) of the Moon’s orbit of the Sun.
Swenson,
Yes the force on the Moon from the Earths gravity is towards the Earth, but does that mean the Moon is falling towards the Earth.
Consider a rocket blasting off of the Earth’s surface, the force of gravity is pulling the rocket down, but would you say the rocket is falling towards the Earth?
The Moon is moving fast enough to avoid falling towards the Earth.
bob,
You wrote –
“Yes the force on the Moon from the Earths gravity is towards the Earth, but does that mean the Moon is falling towards the Earth.”
Yes.
You also wrote (in an excess of ignorant hubris, no doubt) –
“The Moon is moving fast enough to avoid falling towards the Earth.”
No, bob. The Moon is falling continuously towards the Earth, as the only force acting on it is gravity.
Before Newton, the consensus was that supernatural beings, possibly angels, were responsible for the movements of celestial bodies. You may believe as you wish, and ignore Newton. I agree with Newton, which makes him a clever fellow!
[muted laughter]
Swenson,
Do you know that the velocity vector and the acceleration vector for the Moon point in different directions.
The Moon is orbiting the Earth, it is not continually falling towards the Earth.
Where did you get that stupid idea?
I am not laughing at you, I am laughing near you.
bob,
If you choose not to believe in Newton’s Laws of Motion, and the Law of Universal Gravitation, bully for you!
Believe in angels pushing the Moon around its orbit, if you wish. You are only a few hundred years behind the times.
If you don’t believe that the Moon falls freely towards the Earth, with only the force of gravity acting upon it, why not just give your alternate explanation?
Because you can’t, that’s why! Typical of the sort of idiot who believes in a GHE which can neither be observed or measured. Go on, bob, tell us what keeps the Moon orbiting. Angels? Gods? The power of positive thinking?
You’re an idiot. Learn some physics (and English – it’s “continuously”, not “continually”).
“If you don’t believe that the Moon falls freely towards the Earth, with only the force of gravity acting upon it”
It may well fall freely towards Earth but it also has a considerable orbital velocity. That is why it is called an orbit.
Swenson,
Did you actually ever study physics?
Let’s break this down.
“If you choose not to believe in Newtons Laws of Motion, and the Law of Universal Gravitation, bully for you!”
Yes, Newton’s laws are valid, I don’t “believe in them” if you wish to use crappy language.
“Believe in angels pushing the Moon around its orbit, if you wish. You are only a few hundred years behind the times.”
I know one of Newton’s laws states that an object in motion will stay in motion until a force is acted on it. That force is gravity, but it is not sufficient to make the Moon move closer to Earth, or make the Moon fall towards Earth, and in fact the Moon is actually moving farther away from Earth.
“If you dont believe that the Moon falls freely towards the Earth, with only the force of gravity acting upon it, why not just give your alternate explanation?”
I don’t believe any of that, I know the Moon is accelerating towards the Earth, the force of gravity from the Earth is not strong enough to make the Moon fall towards the Earth.
“Because you cant, thats why! Typical of the sort of idiot who believes in a GHE which can neither be observed or measured. Go on, bob, tell us what keeps the Moon orbiting. Angels? Gods? The power of positive thinking?”
The Moon’s momentum is what keeps it orbiting the Earth.
Maybe a wiki quote will help you, but probably not, you lack the scientific training to understand Newton.
“An object in the technical sense of the term “free fall” may not necessarily be falling down in the usual sense of the term. An object moving upwards might not normally be considered to be falling, but if it is subject to only the force of gravity, it is said to be in free fall. The Moon is thus in free fall around the Earth, though its orbital speed keeps it in very far orbit from the Earth’s surface.”
And as I have told you before, the Greenhouse effect can be observed on the graph at the top of the page.
Bob says: “I know the Moon is accelerating towards the Earth, the force of gravity from the Earth is not strong enough to make the Moon fall towards the Earth.”
Again this is semantics. I think pretty much everyone agrees with the 1st sentence (except maybe Gordon). We should just stop there. Trying to use imprecise English words like “falling” vs “in free fall” vs “getting closer to the earth” vs “falling freely” doesn’t add much to the discussion.
“It falls towards the Earth continuously”
The problem seems to be the imprecision of the English language. If I throw a ball straight up, it is certainly *accelerating* downward towards the the earth continuously. The ball is also described as “in free fall” the whole time. But most people would would not describe the ball as “falling” on the way up — only after it reaches the top and is getting lower again.
Similarly the moon is definitely always *accelerating* downward toward the center of the earth. The moon is “in free fall”.
But like the ball, is it ‘falling toward the earth’ when it is moving farther away? That is a question merely of semantics.
Sometimes we gotta live wth the ambiguities of language.
Tim,
You wrote –
“The ball is also described as “in free fall” the whole time.”
Only in Timworld. And then saying “Similarly the Moon . . . ” is just stupid. There is no similarity.
You may describe things as you wish. Nature doesn’t care.
As Feynman said –
“Nature does not care what we call it, she just keeps on doing it.”
Swenson, Do you truly not know the meaning of “free fall” in physics? Do you think “timworld” is responsible for 292,000,000
hits from google for “free fall physics”?
Do you think I wrote the wiki article that says “In Newtonian physics, free fall is any motion of a body where gravity is the only force acting upon it. ”
In any case, your combative tone is odd, since my whole point was that we should concentrate on the physics (accelerating toward the earth) rather than semantics (is it ‘falling’).
Tim
You wrote –
” If I throw a ball straight up, it is certainly “accelerating” downward towards the the earth continuously. The ball is also described as “in free fall” the whole time. ”
As I said, only in Timworld – the land of fantasy.
No Tim, as usual, you have added something. Your pointless ball has your fantasy expenditure of energy involved, not just “in Newtonian physics, free fall is any motion of a body where gravity is the only force acting upon it.”
If you must appeal to authority, appeal to an authority which supports you, rather than me.
As to you telling me what I should concentrate on, why don’t you save your breath? In what insane fantasy do you believe that I should dance to your jangling discord? You may make what you like of my “tone” – why should I care about your sensitive wokeness?
The Moon is in free fall. The only force acting on it is gravity. Semanticise away – I certainly don’t care. Others may do as they wish, of course.
Ah! I see now. I was not quite clear enough. When I was talking about a ball thrown into the air, my intention was “If I throw a ball into the air AND THEN OBSERVE ITS MOTION, then … ” . I was dealing with the time after it left my hand — not while my hand was pushing.
Other than ‘the act of throwing’ there is GREAT similarity. Both the moon and the ball are acted upon only by gravity (ie “in free fall”). Both follow an ellipse (at least until they hit something like the ground). Both conserve energy and angularmomentum.
If ‘the expenditure or energy throwing the ball’ was the only disagreement, then that was easily resolved. Good work, us!
tim…”The problem seems to be the imprecision of the English language. If I throw a ball straight up, it is certainly *accelerating* downward towards the the earth continuously. The ball is also described as in free fall the whole time.”
***
If you throw the ball straight up, it begins to DE-celerate till it stops moving at its highest position. Then, it begins to accelerate and goes into freefall. The point is, freefall requires a change of position vertically downward, toward the surface.
“The point is, freefall requires a change of position vertically downward, toward the surface.”
No. Not according to all common definitions of “free fall”. For example, when people ride the ‘Vomit Comet” to train for 0 g conditions, they are “weightless” and “in free fall” through out the whole parabolic section of the flight — un and down.
You can choose your own definition of course — just know that you have chosen a definition different from the rest of physics.
“If you throw the ball straight up, it begins to DE-celerate till it stops moving at its highest position. Then, it begins to accelerate … ”
Or to be more succinct … If you throw the ball straight up, it accelerates downward the entire time it is in the air. The acceleration is constant the whole time.
It is time to wake up Comical Ali AKA Diddlindong
As He asked for it.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/01/no-roy-spencer-is-not-a-climate-denier/#comment-595961
Surprise Surprise – The curve is below zero as far as the forecast goes now.
https://i.postimg.cc/Kcscq3WF/27sst-Outlooks-nino34-hr.png
Thanks for waking me up! Perfect.
I have admitted to have been wrong already, but I know by experience that people like you won’t stop repeating my mistake.
It’s OK for me: I just need to compare 2021 with… 2010!
“I have admitted to have been wrong already”
But not in the fact that your ‘daily from hourly’ calculation is less accurate than USCRNs daily figures it seems.
” But not in the fact that your ‘daily from hourly’ calculation is less accurate than USCRNs daily figures it seems. ”
WRONG!
1. I NEVER said that my daily evaluation of hourly USCRN data would be more accurate than USCRN’s daily data.
This is something that YOU insinuate since you gave up your daily median computations out of hourly data.
” As you are unable to acknowledge that you cannot calculate daily averages correctly… ”
WRONG!
My calculations are based on hourly data without which I can’t compute medians, because USCRN’s daily data does not have median values, and you perfectly know that.
” … but insist that you are correct and USCRN are wrong ”
Again: I NEVER said that. to pretend it is a pure lie.
*
2. Do you remember? You wrote “Forget the medians”, didn’t you?
You gave the impression to have stopped the ‘average minus mean’ versus ‘average minus median’ because you did not want to admit that the median is subject to even stronger spatial and temporal dependencies than is the mean.
I did not give up the medians. Why? They were the starting point of your claim that medians would be in all cases better than means.
I have shown that this is WRONG.
3. I still await your time series for mean, median and average out of all active stations for 2002 till 2021, exactly in the same as I generated them, so you could try to prove my results be wrong, instead of insinuating this without any proof.
But I guess you won’t do the job, and will prefer to continue insinuating wrong things, like does… Clint R.
“I NEVER said that my daily evaluation of hourly USCRN data would be more accurate than USCRN’s daily data”
Yet you plot the differences in a graph and just imply that you are better than them without acknowledging that it is your calculations that are at fault not theirs.
“I did not give up the medians. Why? They were the starting point of your claim that medians would be in all cases better than means.”
Medians are well known to be better than the average/mean in all normal or skewed normal distributions. Only we don’t have that in daily temperatures do we? You still won’t acknowledge that mean/medians/modes, which are only relevant for normal or skewed normal distributions, do not apply to U shaped distributions (such as Daily temperatures) AT ALL.
Why wait for a plot that would not be useful? Only you could do that.
These are much more useful plots of daily/yearly temperatures over the USCRN.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uscrn-daily-values-3.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uscrn-contiguous-daily-values-1.jpg
I repeat:
But I guess you wont do the job, and will prefer to continue insinuating wrong things, like does… Clint R.
Tell me why, oh guru, a plot of ‘averages’ would be appropriate given that daily temperatures are in a U shaped distribution.
You won’t of course because that would imply some thought rather than a blind application of excel.
Don’t thank, send money.
” … send money. ” ???
Duh! I’m sure you have much more money on your bank accounts than I have on mine.
Robertson, the man who insults even Newton’s translator with a ‘cheating SOB’ name calling, wrote above:
1. ” Figured out the errors in Mayers analysis yet? As an Excel expert, you should be able to replicate them easily. Can you imagine what Mayer would have given for a modern computer and a copy of Excel? ”
I don’t know if it is possible to behave more brazen, more dumb, more stoopid than Robertson.
Robertson the dumb ass is absolutely unable to read even a bit of Mayer’s work, but knows he ‘made errors’.
*
2. ” Mayer did a far better job of mapping out the Moons orbit and with his work on maps and clocks. ”
Nowhere did Mayer speak about Moon’s orbit! That job was pretty good dont till in least details by Kepler and Newton.
And Robertson STILL DIDN’T GRASP that the impressing accuracy of Mayer’s maps of the Moon is SOLELY due to the fact that he was able to compute Moon’s rotation period AND the inclination of its polar rotation axis wrt the Ecliptic.
Nowhere did Mayer work ‘on clocks’.
*
3. ” He should have left the myth of the Moons rotation to physicists like Tesla who understood the physics. ”
Tesla, a physicist ??? Are you kidding us, Robertson?
It is known that Tesla spent much more time in bars with beautiful women than in any university anywhere. He never completed any degree, and hence had no diploma.
He was without a doubt a brilliant tinkerer with a huge mouth, for sure!
But his Moon rotation papers are of horrifying triviality.
Tesla never and never read Lagrange, Laplace, let alone… Mayer.
Blinny the man who does not understand that normal and skewed normal distributions are not the same as U shaped distributions and therefore do not use the same statistics AT ALL.
Oh I see…
If you continue to support an ignoramus like Robertson in this manner, it won’t take you much time to suddenly adhere to the ‘Non-spinner’ club, like did Vournas.
I can fault your competence without supporting his ramblings.
Thanks lads, I needed a good chuckle.
UK Will Tap African Sun/Wind with World’s Longest Undersea Cable
https://electrek.co/2021/09/27/the-worlds-longest-subsea-cable-will-send-clean-energy-from-morocco-to-the-uk/
BP expands production from one of Gulf’s largest oil fields
Quantum of Solace.
I live on Vancouver Island. We depend on three cables from mainland British Columbia for some 90% of the electricity consumed on the Island.
Given what I know about those cables I’d be very interested to learn how much that cable from Morocco to UK will cost. It’d be an engineering marvel. How much of the energy will be lost in the transmission?
I wonder too what the longest existing cable is and how much it costs to operate. Probably Hobart.
“The connection agreement with National Grid allows Xlinks to start transmitting through the first 1.8GW system by 2027”
A lot can happen in 6 years.
Six years is the blink of an eye in energy projects. Thunder Horse field was discovered in 1999.
Many renewable energy projects have failed to come to fruition in a 6 year window. That long a connection (from Morocco) will require a substantial energy price which other, more mature, renewable projects are likely to undercut. Wait and see.
Hey, at least they’ll feel better about themselves by reading about it.
Basslink 298km Very unreliable. I can see UK without electricity for 6 months.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-03/basslink-operator-to-pay-tas-govt-38.5m-in-compensation/12948904
A lot of Europe’s gas and oil comes from Russia. Trump tried to open communications with Putin, something I thought was a very good idea. Why alienate people with atomic bombs and the gas and oil you may need?
Not again!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-58732793
Isn’t it time you USAnians designed a workable government?
Somewhere above, I was (not quite) surprised to read some rather impressing sentences:
” For those of you who think that ‘cosine weighting is the most important thing eva’, I hate to disillusion you but its simply not true. ”
…
” The average temperature at a given lat/long during a day and its gain/loss over the year is dominated by solar spherical geometries not Earth bound ones. ”
*
1. Who told ever about cosine weighting being ‘the most important thing eva’ ?
Who was that?
2. Who told that cosine weighting would have anything to do with solar irradiation?
Who was that?
*
Cosine (or better: latitude) weighting has not anything to do with the Sun.
It has to do with the discrepancy between Earth’s spherical shape and its flat representation when latitudes are not taken into account.
The intention is to avoid that a few stations in the Arctic have the same influence on the global average as stations in the Tropics, although the latitude bands of the Arctic stations represent a much lower area.
There are, of course, alternatives to this latitude weighting, which consist in moving from 2D grids to 3D grids – e.g. by using spherical triangulation, or icosahedral binning, two techniques used by e.g. Nick Stokes and Clive Best.
I know what cosine weighting does and why it is used.
It is just that for the lower 48 of the USCRN it only has a minor effect. From Latitude 25.89 to 48.96 means 0.11 to 0.35 balanced around the ‘center’.
An altitude weighting from 3ft to 9828ft at 3c per 1000ft, 1c per 100m, (approx) would have a much more significant effect.
I was just pointing out that solar geometry, especially in Summer and Winter, has a significant impact on the results as well.
I also know when to use the correct statistics on daily temperatures and what statistics they are. Which apparently you don’t apparently. Care to guess?
Or 0.899 to 0.657 if you want the direct cosine itself.
Which
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/latitude.jpg
shows doesn’t even come close to the actual differences needed for Latitude which are about 1.20c or thereabouts with about 25% of the difference accounted for according to the data.
And that assumes that an average is the best way to assess U shaped distributions!
Well RLH…
If you think that debating about the minuscule CRN corner matters more than considering the whole around it: feel free to do.
Did you btw ever generate, out of the 2.5 degree UAH grid, the monthly NH Ext time series with and without latitude weighting, respectively?
bob,
If you choose not to believe in Newton’s Laws of Motion, and the Law of Universal Gravitation, bully for you!
Believe in angels pushing the Moon around its orbit, if you wish. You are only a few hundred years behind the times.
If you don’t believe that the Moon falls freely towards the Earth, with only the force of gravity acting upon it, why not just give your alternate explanation?
Because you can’t, that’s why! Typical of the sort of idiot who believes in a GHE which can neither be observed or measured. Go on, bob, tell us what keeps the Moon orbiting. Angels? Gods? The power of positive thinking?
You’re an idiot. Learn some physics (and English – it’s “continuously”, not “continually”).
How the heck did I manage to post this twice?
Oh well, I can always pretend that I did it on purpose, because it bears repeating.
Not only twice but in the wrong place. Makes what you said wrong twice as well.
The Earth not only ‘fall’s towards Earth, it has considerable orbital velocity which means it never hits it. So in that case it is falling towards a point that is continuously over the horizon and according to your logic should always face that.
RLH,
You agree about the Moon falling towards the Earth, so that’s a start. You also agree that the Moon is travelling at considerable speed.
As Newton pointed out, the only force acting on the Moon is gravity,
Now you attempt to claim that the Moon falls towards the Earth, whilst simultaneously falling towards some other point, propelled by some mysterious force – possibly angelic in nature.
Then you claim that according to my “logic” (which you just created) a “So in that case . . . ” piece of semantic silliness results. Just to be clear, I use “front” as indicating the face in the direction of travel, and “bottom” as the face at the, well, bottom – the face closest to the COG of the Earth, towards which the Moon is continuously falling.
And observation shows that this is so.
Complain to Nature if you don’t wish to accept reality. You may find that Nature doesn’t care about your opinion any more than I do.
“Now you attempt to claim that the Moon falls towards the Earth, whilst simultaneously falling towards some other point, propelled by some mysterious force”
I was merely pointing out that although gravity acts to make the Moon ‘fall’ towards Earth, its radial orbital velocity means that it will never actually meet it. Instead it will continuously ‘fall’ towards a point that is ‘over the horizon’ which , according to you, it should ‘face’.
Mikey Swenson,
Continually is the better choice, as the acceleration that the Moon is experiencing is not constant, but changes regularly.
The force on the Moon is not continuous, but you know that, as you understand Newton?
And Kepler?
Sure using the most accurate thermometers on the planet is not a useful exercise. The rest of them round the globe may well be inaccurate but what does that matter?
You do know that UAH themselves produces a graphical product from their readings that shows what you want already?
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2021/AUGUST2021/202108_Map.png
What would be using their data to reproduce a global grid show differently from that?
I started five years ago with the evaluation of UAH’s grid data, and produced among other things a cell trend grid which then was reproduced on a sphere simulation provided by Nick Stokes.
UAH produces such cell trend grids once each year.
Is that a reason not to learn by doing the same?
And where did you see UAH providing us with this info, RLH?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YjFLnql_uzZrXY_Hff5TYY9bTBxO38lO/view
Come back when you manage to do sim ilar things, and stop playing the big teacher you are not.
Your point with OLS trends is what? You think that they mean something outside their range?
This
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uah-1.jpeg
shows what large physical systems do both in the short and long term when subject to varying periodic inputs.
And I wait your explanation for what the the graph showing your daily from hourly against USCRNs daily data actually shows.
That is RLH’s ball-on-a-string…
How often shall I repeat that
– I do not need nor intend to compare my daily evaluations of USCRN’s hourly data to their daily data: I know that they MUST differ, due to the fact that USCRN strangely publishes data with only 1 digit atdp
– I need hourly data because USCRN daily does not contain median information
– you on the contrary could easily generate daily out of hourly data, in order to prove me wrong?
But you won’t do that, RLH.
Because if you did, you then would have to publicly admit that my daily evaluations of USCRN’s hourly data are correct.
And people like you hate to admit they are wrong.
“I know that they MUST differ, due to the fact that USCRN strangely publishes data with only 1 digit atdp”
The publish their 5 min data rounded to 1 hour, 1 day and 1 month intervals.
Using those rounded figures in later calculations will suffer from the problems of using already rounded data. i.e. the closer to continuous you are, the less the errors will be.
Not that you will admit to that.
“you on the contrary could easily generate daily out of hourly data, in order to prove me wrong”
That would be daily from 5 min data to satisfy the above. And I’ll just assume that the USCRNs daily data is more accurate than even that would be.
“then would have to publicly admit that my daily evaluations of USCRNs hourly data are correct”
Which would be incorrect. See above.
” It is just that for the lower 48 of the USCRN it only has a minor effect. From Latitude 25.89 to 48.96 means 0.11 to 0.35 balanced around the center. ”
USCRN isn’t the Globe: just a tiny 6 % of its land surface.
GHCN daily has over 900 stations in Alaska. Though there are 20000 in CONUS, it matters to apply the correction.
You think it isn’t? So what.
” An altitude weighting from 3ft to 9828ft at 3c per 1000ft, 1c per 100m, (approx) would have a much more significant effect. ”
No.
The average altitude in USCRN is around 600 m, exactly as in GHCN daily. The few mountains in NM and elsewhere won’t change as much as the latitude factor.
Moreover, altitude matters only when keeping on absolute data; departures from a mean are computed station by station.
” I was just pointing out that solar geometry, especially in Summer and Winter, has a significant impact on the results as well. ”
See above.
” I also know when to use the correct statistics on daily temperatures and what statistics they are. Which apparently you don’t apparently. Care to guess? ”
Hmmmh.
Always the urge in distracting, insinuating, denigrating.
Why do you write ‘apparently’ ? Where is the proof I wouldn’t know?
You remember me Clint R.
“USCRN isnt the Globe: just a tiny 6 % of its land surface”
But the USCRN has an accurate set of thermometers over that 6% designed particularly to get accurate temperature data. That was the reason for their deployment in the first place. Accuracy.
Other sites are much less accurate, some definitely so.
If the USCRN data shows something is happening (or not) when compared to other non accurate stations in the same area why would you choose the less accurate over the more accurate? Even if they have greater numbers?
If such differences are shown where things overlap, why would you then presume that the effect is not world wide?
“Always the urge in distracting, insinuating, denigrating”
Always the inability to answer direct questions. Which statistics should we apply for U shaped distributions and why?
“You remember me Clint R.”
Bindidon reveals both his broken English, and his obsession with me.
Bindidon is the one that has no clue about science, so always lists a bunch of scientists trying to gain some smidgen of credibility. Like Norman, he can use a keyboard, and search for links he doesn’t understand. When someone proves him wrong, he just types longer and longer comments.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint R
You are over 100 % right !
It’s not hard to maintain a high level of accuracy when I’m going up against braindead cult idiots.
Said the cultist.
RLH trolls here constantly. Last month, he was far ahead of others in number of comments.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-827783
He comments WAY more than his share, but never offers anything of consequence. He’s just another incompetent, lonely troll.
Sure. Said the troll.
Should we be using RMS for the temperature values rather than mean/median/mode statistics? Given that the daily/yearly distributions are U shaped rather than normal or skewed normal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_mean_square
RMS is well known for usage in cyclic waveforms such as audio and power to determine the effective power in those. Peak to peak (i.e. min/max) is depreciated as being much less accurate.
This much more likely to reproduce the ‘heating power’ associated with the air temperature in a way that other statistics do not.
After all, most of the calculations are for power in/out rather than just the temperatures as such.
Tell me you are joking.
“heating power” ……..????
I know engineers think they understand science, but this is ridiculous!
“I know engineers think they understand science, but this is ridiculous!”
Please note that qualified Engineers do understand science, how could they not?
Engineers understand science in the same way as a blond understands electronics because she has a mobile phone…..
or understands mechanics because she drives a car.
Engineers designed and created both the mobile phone and the car.
Prof. P, not so fast, I will point out a movie star actress patented the technology used in your mobile phone.
I detect a hint of jealousy!
If all the living scientists in the world were laid end to end, they’d still not reach a conclusion.
“If all the living scientists in the world were laid end to end”
They wish!!
My apologies.
I may have offended some people here.
I should never have compared blonds to engineers.
Sorry ladies.
what do you tell a scientist with two black eyes?
Nothing; you already told him twice.
At least.
Seriously though, jokes aside, I like scientists.
I think everyone should own one or two.
Well if you can tell me what it is that air temperatures are measuring if is not the power (via solar) than is applied to the Earth system then go right ahead.
Go right ahead.
Be my guest.
Calculate the RMS using temperatures.
But, don’t forget to firstly replace “means” with “medians” so that you calculate a “root median square” value.
And then eventually tell us all what insights you gain by going down that rabbit hole.
I can’t wait!
So you recon that means or medians are better at representing solar input power than RMS (of either median or mean) do you?
Or is this just another distraction because you won’t admit that means/medians/modes are very poor statistics to use on U shaped distributions. In fact a lot of statistics textbooks recommend against using them for just that case.
RMS has a long history however on being used on just those sort of periodic/sinusoidal data.
You mean (pun intended)
’round(SQRT(Avg( POWER(T_DAILY_AVG , 2) ) ), 2) as RMS’
do you?
RLH wrote:
Air temperature represents the present state of the dynamic system called climate, typically measured at a point in space and time, while the Sun’s rate of energy input effects the rate of change of that dynamic system. Temperature is the result of the integral of all the inputs and outputs of that system.
The power drain is an almost constant downwards sloping line whereas the power input is the upper half of the visible ellipse from the interaction of the horizon with the sun’s orbit.
See the daily profiles I presented.
RLH, “Power Drain” sounds like an electrical engineering term. You appear to be confusing energy and power. Of course, the rate of thermal energy loss from the Earth’s atmosphere is related to the temperature, as is well known from the SB equations and convective heat transfer theory. The rate of IR thermal energy loss from the climate system varies little thru the day, but it doesn’t change the way you seem to think, since the diurnal temperature cycle includes SW energy gain from the Sun which is a different process.
Integrating the temperature curve would provide an indication of thermal energy gain or loss at the local level. Averaging the data would produce a similar result.
Sure I use terms I am familiar with but that doesn’t change the overall effects. And I am not confusing energy and power.
On one side we have solar input from the Sun. On the other we have an output to outer space. Gain and drain.
The 2 curves are quite different as the temperature series show.
e.g.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/53151_fallbrook_5-ne-1.jpeg
The fall from sunset to sunrise corresponds quite well to SB over the range that there is.
The rise from sunrise to sunset is driven by the energy from the Sun integrated by the matter involved into a curve.
In fact it is quite likely that the overall curved line turns the input/output into a triangular radiation waveform and the balance is ‘lost’ though evaporation and thermals.
RLH, I think you are hopelessly confused. Sure, as your curve shows, the atmosphere cools at night and warms during the day, as anyone might expect. But, why are you attempting to turn this into a curve of “input/output into a triangular radiation waveform”, instead of considering that the atmosphere also “drains” energy during daylight hours, even as the temperature may be increasing.
There are (at least) 2 “curves”, one for the night/day cooling and one for the daytime warming. These portions of the diurnal cycle are the result of different processes, such as the effects of dew point temperature, which slows the rate of cooling below that temperature point. I think you are barking up the wrong tree, as we say around here.
I am not. The radiation triangle/sawtooth is the rise and fall from the points just after sunrise to just after sunset. The excess above that line will be what is ‘lost’ to evaporation and thermals as I said.
I would expect that a surface without an atmosphere would be much closer to the sawtooth/triangular waveform and one with an atmosphere closer to what is shown.
I should add that the upwards ‘straight’ line will show some curvature too as the incidence angle of the Sun to the surface will cause it to be so.
RLH, Your “sawtooth/triangular waveform” looks more like a rectified sine wave. And that only applies to the daylight hours, which vary thru the year. At high latitudes in Winter, there’s little solar input, especially in the Arctic, when there may be nothing. Furthermore, your approach only works for clear sky conditions, since adding clouds changes the wave form’s appearance.
“RLH, Your “sawtooth/triangular waveform” looks more like a rectified sine wave. And that only applies to the daylight hours, which vary thru the year”
Indeed the solar input side is just like that.
The output side (both day and night) is more like a downwards sloping line.
It is the combination that produces what you see.
The input side is nearly a triangular waveform with the rising portion curved slightly upwards to account for the solar angle with the surface. Thus it will be a smaller version of the red line in this graph tilted upwards from dawn to dusk.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04140_lewistown_42-wsw-1.jpeg
Any access above that is likely dissipated by evaporation and thermals as I said (with some being reserved for downwards conduction also).
As this data is collected from over the last 20 years, it is expected that there will be no overall trend upwards or downwards during that time (or at the very least it will be quite minor).
… heating power {from solar} associated with the air temperature…
to satisfy Prof P.
Go on.
Give us an example.
Pick a short or long time series and demonstrate this thing called “heating power from solar”.
How about Arctic temperatures during the middle of winter?
Where there is no sol visible, how would there be any solar power input?
As to the times that the Sun/sol is visible try
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04223_darrington_21-nne.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04237_quinault_4-ne.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04140_lewistown_42-wsw-1.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/53151_fallbrook_5-ne-1.jpeg
What statistic do you think would be best used on such daily data?
Histograms of the above data
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04140_lewistown_42-wsw.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04237_quinault_4-ne_profile.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04237_quinault_4-ne_profile.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04223_darrington_21-nne_profile.jpg
Notice the U shaped distribution profiles?
Ooops. Sorry for the duplicate
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/53151_fallbrook_5-ne_profile.jpg
Mind you I suppose solar power should include the twilights both before sunrise and after sunset to be more accurate where the Sun does not illuminate the Earth but does illuminate the sky.
Why the fascination with u-shaped distributions?
The means of such distributions tend to normal distributions.
That is why mean daily temperatures tend to be normal. The fact that hourly values are u-shaped is almost irrelevant.
Just like a pair of dice. Each dice has a uniform distribution but the distribution of their sums tends (binomially) to normality.
This is basic statistics.
“The means of such distributions tend to normal distributions”
But are subject to large variances on small alterations at both the high and low sections of the profiles.
U shaped distributions are rarely encountered in normal statistics.
https://www.statisticshowto.com/u-shaped-distribution/
“a U-shaped distribution cant be turned into a bell curve by a meaningful transformation, even if it is perfectly symmetric (Iversen & Norpoth, 1987).”
“U-shaped distributions have been noted for more than a hundred years. Pearson (1895) stated that U-shaped curves, because of the prevalence of extremes, may appear in meteorological phenomena”
What statistic do you think would be best used on such daily data?
The mean
and
The variance
That would tell you something about the hourly temperatures, but nothing of great interest.
If you want to say something about solar heating, then you could try regressing delta T vs Solar. The slopes and intercepts contain some information. But you need a scientist to interpret them!
What statistics do you recommend on U shaped hourly distributions and why?
The mean and the variance are mostly used on normal and skewed normal distributions. See any stats book.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04223_darrington_21-nne.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04237_quinault_4-ne.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04140_lewistown_42-wsw-1.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/53151_fallbrook_5-ne-1.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04223_darrington_21-nne_profile.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04237_quinault_4-ne_profile.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/04140_lewistown_42-wsw.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/53151_fallbrook_5-ne_profile.jpg
You are getting too hung up on the hourly data.
The mean is of interest and the means are well behaved.
Give me the data over several days and I can estimate the normal distribution.
The hourly data is then of no interest.
.. unless you wish to study what causes the diurnal variation.
But that is an entirely different issue. So don’t conflate them.
Small variations at both around noon and midnight will have a disproportional effect on the mean/medians/modes.
That comes from effecting the ends of the U.
One of the interesting facts that came from analysis of daily USCRN data was that the Tmean, (Tmin+Tmx)/2, and the Tmedian were both in error to the Taverage in an almost symmetrically and opposite ways. When one was high the other was low and vice versa.
I have posted already both the profiles and the histograms for various USCRN sites. I have more.
If you can come up with a reason why the Taverage is different to Tmean/Tmedian on any basis I would like to know.
These are of interest for USCRN daily data
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uscrn-daily-values-3.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uscrn-contiguous-daily-values-1.jpg
Note the asymmetrical monthly vertical distributions with long lower tails which would indicate preference for median over mean.
See also
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uscrn-monthly-values-2.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uscrn-contiguous-monthly-values-3.jpg
Hourly and yearly data show the same cyclic behavior. Are you saying that yearly data is of no interest too?
You are confused.
Monthly data may be u-shaped but that is almost irrelevant except if you wish to analyse the seasonal cycle.
A monthly value on its own (say January) is mainly of interest when compared with another January value. The distribution of January values is what is of interest (via the mean and standard deviation).
The same goes for other months.
Next step, form the annual average. Again, the distribution of the monthly values is of little interest since it is the distribution of annual averages that is of interest.
Again, do not conflate the issue of analysing monthly or annual means with the issue of the underlying distribution of the daily data or the different monthly values.
“Monthly data may be u-shaped”
No it isn’t. It shows a line that rises or falls over a month depending on when in the year it is, with the line being nearly horizontal just after the solstice at winter and summer and the most diagonal just after the equinox in Spring and Autumn.
Much like chopping a sinusoid into 12 segments would give.
Yearly data is more like daily data in its overall sinusoidal pattern.
Sure comparisons year on year, month on month, day on day, all a year apart, reduces things to anomalies which can be helpful but fails to address the requirement to balance ingoing and outgoing at a more local level which is so often what is done.
You haven’t addressed if you think that mean/median are valid statistics to analyze U shaped distributions where every stats text book says that they aren’t.
U shaped distributions are particular sensitive to changes at their ‘ends’, high and low which makes mean and median sensitive likewise too.
Look at the data distributions that
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/53151_fallbrook_5-ne-1.jpeg
and
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/53151_fallbrook_5-ne_profile.jpg
display and tell me what static’s you would use to characterize them?
In the first case, the only statistic of interest is the mean 18.9
That is what a reasonable person would ask: “What is the mean temperature?”
The distribution of the hourly values is of no interest.
The distribution of the different mean daily values is of interest. Here a reasonable person would be interested in both the mean and the standard deviation (and the long-term trend).
Asking me about the best way to describe the u-shaped distribution is irrelevant. You are again getting side-tracked.
This thread will soon end. I have led the horse to water but I cannot make it drink.
Let me clue you in to an interesting observation.
Anomalies only really compare ‘like with like’.
Thus Summers may be compared to Summers. Winters with Winters, Springs with Springs. Autumns with Autumns.
To say that Years can be compared to Years also misses some quite interesting differences.
Thus a Winter maybe 1c warmer than previous Winters but only show up as 0.25c difference in the Yearly figures. Likewise a Summer 1c cooler. 0.25c can quite easily be lost in the ‘noise’.
Of course you could claim that the yearly figures are more important but I think that maybe not the case.
“the only statistic of interest is the mean 18.9”
Even thought stats text books say that the mean is a poor analysis of U shaped distributions?
p,
You wrote –
“Again, the distribution of the monthly values is of little interest since it is the distribution of annual averages that is of interest.”
Interesting to climate crackpots and possibly historians. Of no practical use whatsoever.
So which are you – crackpot or historian?
The most important climate update from #1 Climate Autist
You don’t want to miss it
https://youtu.be/yQiswWwBIFs
Its how I imagine RLH.
It’s not.
Here’s what the completely ignorant bobdroege wrote earlier –
“Mikey Swenson,
Continually is the better choice, as the acceleration that the Moon is experiencing is not constant, but changes regularly.
The force on the Moon is not continuous, but you know that, as you understand Newton?
And Kepler?”
Having been called out on his ignorance of English and physics, he doubles down, and makes twice the idiot of himself! Coincidentally, here are example of continuous, plucked from the internet –
“Things that are unceasing or exist without interruption are continuous. For example, the flow of a river, the motion of the planets around the sun, . . .” and the motion of the Moon around the Earth!
bob also overturns Newton at a stroke, claiming that that gravity operates in fits and starts, not unceasingly. bobdroege may not be a complete idiot yet, but he is trying. Very trying.
What a fool he is!
Mikey Swenson,
I’ll have none of your bullshit interpretations of what I said.
“bob also overturns Newton at a stroke, claiming that that gravity operates in fits and starts, not unceasingly. bobdroege may not be a complete idiot yet, but he is trying. Very trying.”
All I said is that the acceleration on the Moon due to Earth’s gravity varies. Continually varies or continuously varies, either one works for me.
If you don’t understand that, perhaps you should take an Astronomy course at your local junior college.
This is a Science blog, you don’t win points by using English definitions.
You are too stupid to realize the Moon is not moving towards the Earth at all times.
Just too stupid.
You are also too stupid to realize that anyone can use terms on the internet incorrectly, as you seem to relish doing.
Like bobdroege, RLH persists with his fantasy, unable to accept reality. He wrote –
“I was merely pointing out that although gravity acts to make the Moon ‘fall’ towards Earth, its radial orbital velocity means that it will never actually meet it. Instead it will continuously ‘fall’ towards a point that is ‘over the horizon’ which , according to you, it should ‘face.”
The Moon falls towards the Earth, continuously. It is subject to one force only – gravity.
No amount of putting your fantasies as issuing from my mouth will change reality. Learn some physics. Leave the “silly semantic games” to twits like Witless Wee Willy Willard. They are all he has.
“The Moon falls towards the Earth, continuously. It is subject to one force only gravity.”
You forgot inertia or is that not a force too? Here I was thinking that Newton had 3 laws.
RLH,
One force only – gravity. At least you accept that Newton proposed 3 Laws of Motion.
Try reading them, and then understanding.
Thanks for actually quoting me – is there something you don’t agree with? Maybe you could tsa what it is, and back it up with a fact or two. Your fantasies are not fact.
Carry on.
So inertia is not a force then?
“In the first law, an object will not change its motion unless a force acts on it”
In this case, orbital motion is unchanged by the gravity acting at right angles to it.
That describes the path of the COG with 2 forces acting on it. One inertia for the forward momentum, the other gravity which turns that into a curve.
Mike Flynn,
Monomaniacal Flop.
Mikey Swenson,
“The Moon falls towards the Earth, continuously.”
Yes this is true, except for during half of its orbit the Moon falls away from the Earth.
As in ‘during half of its orbit around Earth, the Moon increases its distance from Earth. During the other half the distance decreases’.
Mikey Swenson,
Here is a definition of fall
“move downward, typically rapidly and freely without control, from a higher to a lower level.”
You are using that term incorrectly.
Probably a term studied in kindergarten, did you go to kindergarten?
I didn’t.
Droege,
It is odd that you’re a leftist. Why is it that Marxism and Communism are the ideals, but freedom and liberty are something to despise? Were our Founders satanic? It just staggers the imagination. This question is not a question for Droege but you leftists in general.
Anderson,
You have never seen me hold up Communism or Marxism as ideals.
Nor have you seen me post anything that would indicate I despise freedom and liberty.
I am a scientist, a progressive, and a liberal, if that makes me a leftist, so be it.
I don’t think our founders were satanic, but if they were here and saw the current crop of republicans I don’t think you would appreciate what they would say about them.
It does make you a leftist. And, it has nothing to do with Republicans. What about the ideals of the Founders? This has nothing to do with science. Climate alarmism is a leftist agenda. It isn’t a science agenda.
Anderson,
If I have a desire to maintain the climate of the late 20th century, does that make me a conservative?
What is wrong with being a leftist, anyway?
If you were to speak clearly you wouldn’t use words like climate alarmism nor science agenda.
Empiricism leads to the conclusion that we will stop burning fossil fuels sooner or later.
The question being will that happen because we decided to do it or because we became extinct.
Man, you sold out science long ago.
Also, if Empiricism leads you to that conclusion you might want to have your senses checked.
Sold out science, huh.
The science is straightforward sophomore year organic chemistry, specifically the empirically observed behavior of the carbon to oxygen double bond.
And I have made no money from climate science, though I made a few bucks at a Nuclear Power Plant.
Yes, carbon dioxide absorbs IR. There isn’t enough of it to do anything appreciable to temperature. Not even at 0.4%, much less 0.04%. God didn’t design a ticking time bomb into our planet. You need to get your head out of your arse. And, yeah, we’ve both hung around Nuke plants, and subs.
P.S.-You need to read Berry’s paper. He’s brilliant.
bob,
You wrote –
“And I have made no money from climate science, though I made a few bucks at a Nuclear Power Plant.”
Right up until the time you got fired. The management didn’t share your view about how smart you were, and how stupid the management was, I hear. Management 1, bobdroege 0.
Not surprising.
I can’t have a scientific argument with someone who brings God into the mix.
“God didn’t design a ticking time bomb into our planet.”
Let me ask you.
How do you know God didn’t design a ticking time bomb?
Really God talks to you?
maguff…”what do you tell a scientist with two black eyes?
Nothing; you already told him twice”.
***
What do you call a climate alarmist at the bottom of the ocean?
A good start.
prof p…”Engineers understand science in the same way as a blond understands electronics because she has a mobile phone..”
***
Interesting to hear a wannabee scientist expounding on something he knows nothing about. Engineering is a slang term for applied science. The basic engineering degree is Bachelor of Applied Science.
To apply science you first have to learn it, Mr. Dimwit. And you don’t just learn any old science, you get it at the honours level.
Tim Folkerts attempts more semantic silliness (apologies to anyone who hasn’t followed the exchange) –
“Other than ‘the act of throwing’ there is GREAT similarity. Both the moon and the ball are acted upon only by gravity (ie “in free fall”). Both follow an ellipse (at least until they hit something like the ground). Both conserve energy and angular momentum.”
Tim does not accept the fact that Newton’s Laws apply to the Moon, and the only force acting on it is the force of gravity, resulting in the Moon continuously falling towards the Earth.
Tim may not be aware that qualifying his nonsense with “Other than . . . ” rather destroys his attempt at obfuscation. As to a ball thrown straight up (in a straight line) following an ellipse, this is just nonsensical. I assume Tim is confused or sloppy, and really meant that he threw his ball at an angle to the Earth’s gravitational field, resulting in a parabolic, rather than elliptical trajectory.
More nonsense follows based on misunderstanding of conservation laws. Both misleading and irrelevant, whilst attempting to sound knowledgeable.
I am surprised that Tim didn’t add the fact that his ball and the Moon are similar in shape!
Tim, like others, may not understand how the Moon can continuously fall towards the Earth without ever reaching it. I await with interest his next attempt to muddy the waters.
In the meantime, the Moon continues to fall towards the Earth, always presenting the same face to the surface towards which it is falling. No magic, just Sir Isaac Newton’s exceptionally insightful Laws of Motion and Universal Gravitation in action.
“Both the moon and the ball are acted upon only by gravity” and inertia.
Tim: Both the moon and the ball are acted upon only by gravity …
Swenson: Tim does not accept the fact that … the only force acting on it [the moon] is the force of gravity …
I think you need to work on your reading skills! That was in the sentences you quoted!
“… and really meant that he threw his ball at an angle to the Earth’s gravitational field, resulting in a parabolic, rather than elliptical trajectory.”
Yes, that is a subtle point, so it is not surprising that you had problems here. 99.9 percent of engineers would miss that.
Any projectile motion is really an ellipse, not a parabola! Parabolas are handy (and very excellent) approximations when the path is short enough that gravity can be considered constant both in magnitude and direction (and air resistance can be ignored). But gravity does indeed change with height, and does indeed change in direction as a projectile moves forward. So while freshman physics uses the parabolic approximation, we can always use the more accurate elliptical path if we want. And we should use it when the trajectory includes large changes in altitude and/or horizontal displacement.
(Also, a vertical path can just be considered the limit of a very skinny parabola or ellipse.)
“Tim, like others, may not understand how the Moon can continuously fall towards the Earth without ever reaching it. “
Nope, I understand just fine. You might want to try to get Gordon to understand. I have had no luck convincing him of this simple fact.
tim…”Or to be more succinct If you throw the ball straight up, it accelerates downward the entire time it is in the air. The acceleration is constant the whole time”.
***
I used the proper term, decelerate, to describe the action of gravity on a ball moving vertically away from the surface. Before it can accelerate in the downward direction it has to come to a complete stop.
Acceleration is a description of a body reacting to an applied force by changing its velocity so that the velocity increases, Deceleration is a reference to a body decreasing its velocity.
In terms of Newton, acceleration is used in f = mg whereas deceleration is used as f = -mg. When the latter term = 0, the f = mg can be applied.
In terms of freefall, only f = mg applies. Of course, there’s also air resistance acting and perhaps the force of crosswinds. Even with a high speed bullet leaving a rifle barrel, the bullet is subject to air resistance and cross winds. The same air that resistance the motion of the bullet head on, can deviate the bullet when the air moves in different directions.
Only engineers with a smattering of science could conjure up such a waste of time discussing such an irrelevancy.
I would rather converse with a blond.
A team of engineers were required to measure the height of a flag pole. They only had a measuring tape, and were getting quite frustrated trying to keep the tape along the pole. A mathematician comes along, removes the pole from the ground and lays it on the ground, measuring it easily. When he leaves, one engineer says to the other: “Just like a mathematician! We need to know the height, and he gives us the length!”
A proper engineer would use an instrument designed for just that purpose.
“The most accurate method for measuring the height of a flagpole is to use a surveyor’s theodolite to measure the angle of elevation and the distance from the base of the pole. With that information, you can calculate the height from the tangent of the angle of elevation.”
Requires no moving of the pole and just some simple maths.
It sounds like you are confusing Engineers with Builders. A common mistake that scientists are prone to.
The Moon discussion is indeed irrelevant, as something that is not happening does not affect anything.
But the discussion is not a waste of time. It’s important to see the religious zeal of the Cult. They will stop at nothing to defend their “holy” institutions and false beliefs. I wouldn’t be surprised to see calls to outlaw balls and string!
“Its important to see the religious zeal of the Cult”
I glad to see you admit that you are in a cult.
“Before it can accelerate in the downward direction it has to come to a complete stop.”
Nope! It is accelerating in the downward directions the whole time!
“Acceleration is a description of a body reacting to an applied force by changing its velocity so that the velocity increases”
No, not really.
Acceleration is a vector describing a change in the velocity vector. An acceleration can cause an object to speed up, to slow down, or to change direction.
Sometimes people use the words “accelerate” and “decelerate” specifically to mean “speeding up” and “slowing down” respectively, but these are just specific cases of the more general meaning.
“Acceleration is a description of a body reacting to an applied force by changing its velocity so that the velocity increases” in a particular direction. If that direction happens to be opposite to the direction the body is currently travelling in, there is not a problem.
See Tim’s comment.
Only 15000 days left.
Not fair.
One hopes the weather gods ,
otherwise known as UHA can conjure up a ridiculously low temp this time
Not likely to happen this month I’m afraid. The rest of the year is more likely to be downwards but not this month.
Shame.
I think Jaxa has a site with fairly recent temps?
Try
https://oz4caster.wordpress.com/cfsr/
I bet angech believes rainmakers are real.
The science on cloud seeding to produce rain is still ambivalent, with some saying it does and others saying doesn’t.
Swenson says “…The Moon is falling continuously towards the Earth…”
I see now where Swenson gets his “science!”
Moonfall is a disaster movie about the Moon falling
Of course it’s a Roland Emmerich film
You pretty much always know what to expect from a Roland Emmerich movie: namely, that a good chunk of the planet is going to be destroyed. The director of films like 2012 and The Day After Tomorrow is now taking that to its logical extreme with Moonfall, a movie about the Moon… falling.
According to the synopsis, the movie is set when “a mysterious force knocks the Moon from its orbit around Earth and sends it hurtling on a collision course with life as we know it.” It stars Halle Berry as a NASA exec who seems to know how to stop it, but the only people who believe her are a former astronaut (Patrick Wilson) and a conspiracy theorist (John Bradley). “These unlikely heroes will mount an impossible last-ditch mission into space, leaving behind everyone they love, only to find out that our Moon is not what we think it is,” the description reads.
Really, Moonfall sounds like what would happen if you mashed a Hollywood disaster movie with Destiny lore — which is to say, it sounds like a lot of fun. It’s expected to come to theaters on February 4th, 2022.
Spoiler alert: it’s fantasy.
The Moon Is Leaving Us
And we can’t stop it.
September 30, 2021
Blockquote>The moon is drifting away from us.
Each year, our moon moves distinctly, inexorably farther from Earthjust a tiny bit, about an inch and a half, a nearly imperceptible change. There is no stopping this slow ebbing, no way to turn back the clock. The forces of gravity are invisible and unshakable, and no matter what we do or how we feel about them, they will keep nudging the moon along. Over many millions of years, we’ll continue to grow apart.
.
.
.
The moon used to be closer. When it first formed, about 4.5 billion years ago, molded out of rocky debris that had been floating around Earth, the moon orbited 10 times nearer to the planet than it does today. The debris, scientists believe, had come from a collision between Earth and a mysterious Mars-sized object. Fresh out of the cosmic oven, the moon was hot and molten, glowing red in the night sky. Back then, scientists say, the moon was moving away at a rate of about eight inches per year.
“The reason that the Moon is slowly moving away from the Earth is due to the interaction of the Moon’s gravity with Earth’s oceans. The Moon exerts a gravitational force on the Earth which causes the movement of the Earth’s oceans to form a tidal bulge. Earth’s rotation causes this tidal bulge to occur in a position which is slightly ahead of the Moon in its orbit around the Earth, which causes some of the energy of the Earth’s rotation to get transferred to the tidal bulge via friction. This friction results in a small amount of energy transfer into the Moon’s orbital motion, resulting in the Moon being pushed to an orbit which is further away from the Earth. The Moon is moving away from the Earth at a rate of about 3.78 cm per year”
I sometimes wonder if the continents, which ‘float’ on the core, are actually rock left behind by a collision with the moon.
Its fun playing with google earth and looking at the map from different perspectives. You can trace a great circle that approximates the coast from Tierra del Fuego to SE Asia via Bering Sea.
Ah, yes, and no.
We date rocks. And it’s related to when rocks were last melted- as tends to be a measurement of radioactive decay making new elements, and if a molten rock “they shouldn’t be there”- roughly speaking.
Or don’t date them when became say the element silicon in core of some sun or when somehow they escaped a star. Though I believe that is also possible to do {or all material has a clock- how you caliber it, and how accurate you could be, might be iffy}.
Some rocks are very hard to melt, and these kinds of rocks also used- because they hard to melt.
with your typical impactor hitting earth, it vaporizes, and can condense and form droplets. Or Arizona crater, Meteor Crater, was thought and is thought to be iron impactor, and someone spend a lifetime looking for the iron, and didn’t find it. But that not surprising- though it’s possible that one could find a huge chunk of iron. So, one could have chunk space rock hit our ground and be as cold as it was in space and unimaginable chaos of any rock as big as,,, say 500 km or bigger in diameter hitting earth, some space alien sitting somewhere on that huge rock hitting earth, could have a low collision velocity with Earth.
But roughly a lot of the rock vaporizes and brightness of rock when passing thru our atmosphere can brighter the surface of the sun. But intense flash of light, is probably the the least of your worries. Or if you on opposite side of Earth, you are dead.
But you might die quickly. Or possible you sleep thru it, and wake up to molten surface of the Earth. Or kind of the space alien sitting on 500 km or larger rock hitting Earth. Chances are bad, it’s possible. Or people can fall out planes and live- which is less chaotic.
Recently there idea that Earth was hit twice by same large rock, and they think Venus tends to be last planet hit, by big or small rocks first hitting Earth and ending on Venus, and they imagine Venus resurfaced by a larger rock about 500 million years ago.
But no doubt we will get more theories.
This nonsense has been out there for years. TM believes he’s brilliant for throwing it out. The uninformed cult idiots slurp it up, without question. It’s as comical as it is pathetic.
Sentence after sentence of pure beliefs. Beliefs ain’t science.
Clint R at 10:13 AM
Your very own reference posted here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/09/uah-global-temperature-update-for-august-20210-17-deg-c/#comment-883637
slides 84 and 85 supports all of this, so you have not cause to complain.
TM, those are NOT “my” references. They are from YOUR cult science. I used them to show RLH how stupid he was to ignore the “ball-on-a-string”. He is so stupid, he still ignores HIS own references.
You need to study the conversation before you make a fool of yourself, again.
Clint R at 12:53 PM
Backpedal all you want; you’ve already scored an own goal with your own references little man. And I haven’t begun to address slide 89; I’m saving that one!
Clint R at 12:53 PM
P.s.: https://tinyurl.com/Okay-HuffingMan
TM can’t help making a fool of himself. He proceeds with name-calling, idle threats, and juvenile Youtube nonsense.
He’s got NOTHING.
“ball-on-a-string” is only relevant to ball-on-a-string.
Nothing to do with gravitational orbits at all.
TM,
You wrote –
“And I haven’t begun to address slide 89; I’m saving that one!”
Oooooh! Saving slide 89! A devastating gambit, if ever there was one!
I’m being sarcastic, in case you hadn’t noticed. You don’t seem to be overly connected to reality, so you might have thought I was being serious.
Carry on. I enjoy seeing idiots pretending to be intelligent. I shouldn’t of course, but I make exceptions for climate cranks.
Swenson at 7:02 PM
Swenson, incoherent as usual.
Light ‘radar’ measurements show that the Moon is receding. Those are actual facts, not suppositions.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2020/laser-beams-reflected-between-earth-and-moon-boost-science
“One of the biggest revelations is that the Earth and Moon are slowly drifting apart at the rate that fingernails grow, or 1.5 inches (3.8 centimeters) per year. This widening gap is the result of gravitational interactions between the two bodies”
“This widening gap is the result of gravitational interactions between the two bodies”
Earth’s tides do NOT “add energy” to Moon.
And even if they could, that energy would not result in an increase of linear momentum.
RLH believes whatever his cult dictates.
So the Moon is not receding from the Earth. At all. Even though the measurements say that it is. Good to know.
We’ve only been able to measure distance to Moon, with high precision, since the Apollo missions where reflectors were left on the surface. We only have about 50 years of measurements. What if Moon goes through 400 year oscillations due to other planets?
We simply don’t know what the measurements are telling us.
But, we do know that Earth’s tides do NOT “add energy” to Moon.
RLH,
You wrote –
“So the Moon is not receding from the Earth. At all. Even though the measurements say that it is. Good to know.”
Who said the Moon is not receding from the Earth?
You just make nonsense up as you go along.
Get a grip. Accept reality. As Feynman pointed out to NASA “Nature cannot be fooled.”
Keep trying.
“Who said the Moon is not receding from the Earth?”
Clint R who thinks it is only a short term behavior. See above.
“But, we do know that Earths tides do NOT add energy to Moon”
So what powers the tides on Earth? Where does that energy come from?
RLH,
You wrote –
“So what powers the tides on Earth? Where does that energy come from?”
Don’t you know? Or are you just posing more witless gotchas?
If you admit you really don’t understand Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation, and you demonstrate your efforts to educate yourself, just tell me what parts you can’t comprehend, and I will refer you to some basic texts which might explain the matter better than I can in a few lines.
Let me know if I can help.
RLH,
You wrote –
“Clint R who thinks it is only a short term behavior. See above.”
So nobody actually said that the Moon is not receding from the Earth, is that it?
Your fantasy is somewhat disconnected from reality. Putting words in peoples’ mouths is probably less effective than quoting them, wouldn’t you agree?
Clint R thinks that is currently receding. Do you disagree with him?
“So what powers the tides on Earth? Where does that energy come from?”
Go on then. Explain it to me. The energy has to come from somewhere and the dissipation of some of that energy through friction losses and similar here on Earth has to have some effect.
What is it and where does it show up?
Earth’s tides do NOT “add energy” to Moon.
Nigel Farage complained he couldn’t get petrol and sympathy was in even shorter supply
Its not Brexit: its climate change claptrap.
Politicians ‘don’t understand’ net-zero emissions is an ‘economic suicide note’.
Mikey Swenson’s universal law of everything.
Mikey Swenson is never wrong, except when he is, and then it’s only a stupid “gotcha”
“A circle is an ellipse”
Is that the way Mikey Swenson’s mind works?
Well at least they are all conic sections.
bob,
First thing that pops up on the internet –
“A circle is a special case of an ellipse, with the same radius for all points.”
Even Wikipedia agrees! How good is that?
Fairly basic. Keep making idiotic comments. You will eventually get something right by accident – by the time Hell freezes over, maybe.
By the way, the Moon falls towards the Earth continuously. I know you don’t want to believe it, but that’s the way it is.
Are they going to collide?
RLH,
You demanded –
“Go on then. Explain it to me.”
As I said before, If you admit you really dont understand Newtons Law of Universal Gravitation, and you demonstrate your efforts to educate yourself, just tell me what parts you cant comprehend, and I will refer you to some basic texts which might explain the matter better than I can in a few lines.
You are just posing another gotcha, aren’t you? The usual refuge of the idiot trying to appear intelligent.
swenson…”A circle is a special case of an ellipse, with the same radius for all points.”
***
Equation of an ellipse…x^2/a^2 + y^2/b^2 = 1
‘a’ refers to 1/2 the major axis (longest axis) and b = 1/2 minor axis.
In a circle, a = b which would be the radius, so call it R
x^2/R^2 + y^2/R^2 = 1
Multiply both sides by R^2…
x^2 + y^2 = R^2…the equation of a circle. Only good at 0,0.
It’s late, someone check my math.
I hate these new mathlab notations…
https://www.cuemath.com/geometry/ellipse/
Hey Gordon Robertson…. An ellipse is the locus of a point, which moves in such a way, that the ratio of its distances from a fixed point and from a fixed straight line is constant.
Mikey Swenson,
Yes a circle is a special case of an ellipse, but that’s not what you said. I didn’t say you were wrong about that.
You said a circle is an ellipse, which is sloppy writing.
And no the Moon is not falling towards the Earth continuously, it is in freefall, that’s also a little different from falling.
I looked up the definition of falling in an online dictionary for you.
The Moon is not falling towards the Earth, because for half of its orbit it is moving away from the Earth, because its orbit is elliptical, and not the special ellipse that is also a circle.
You think you are correct to say the Moon is falling towards the Earth continuously, you are wrong and an idiot to suggest that.
“You think you are correct to say the Moon is falling towards the Earth continuously, you are wrong and an idiot to suggest that.”
Is the Earth falling towards the sun, continuously?
Is Sun falling towards Earth, continuously?
Is the Moon falling towards the Sun, continuously?
Is the Moon falling towards the Earth, continuously?
Is the Earth falling towards the Moon, continuously?
Is a satellite in Earth orbit, falling towards Earth, continuously?
Is Earth falling towards satellites, continuously?
RLH quoted above –
“The reason that the Moon is slowly moving away from the Earth is due to the interaction of the Moon . . . “, which appears to come from the same National Science Foundation which strenuously claimed that melting sea ice resulted in rising sea levels – in total contravention of Archimedes Principle.
They are wrong again.
So is the Moon moving further away or not?
RLH,
Starting your gotcha with “So . . . ” is a bit of a giveaway.
Why do you ask? Have you appointed me as your personal verification authority, and why?
Questions, questions!
Ask yourself why would the Moon be moving closer to the Earth, if its linear momentum is sufficient to overcome the gravitational attraction between the Moon and the Earth.
Learn some physics, and you don’t need to ask gotchas.
swenson…”sk yourself why would the Moon be moving closer to the Earth, if its linear momentum is sufficient to overcome the gravitational attraction between the Moon and the Earth”.
***
I am always skeptical of claims that the Moon is moving farther away. If it lost momentum, gravity would have more effect and the Moon would move closer, something we don’t want to see. If it gained momentum, which is unlikely, it would elongate its orbit till it eventually pulled free.
The claims of the Moon moving away are in millimetres. I am wondering if someone has messed up with the averaging of an elliptical path. Or, maybe, as Clint inferred, there are other forces operating on the Earth-Moon system over the long term.
It is thought by some that ice ages may be a result of variations in Earth’s orbit.
maguff…”Have you struggled to get petrol and voted to leave the EU, did you feel any pang of guilt that the two could be related?”
***
Long before the EU was formed, Brits were soaked for petrol. They were paying the equivalent of CAN $4/litre 40 years ago. Most of it was taxes, of course. Even today in Canada we pay CAN $1.50/litre and we think that is exorbitant.
The Tories have been trying for years to undo any kind of decency legislated for the average Brit. They have been creating mass poverty while lining the pockets of a few wealthy people. The wealthiest person in the UK is a Russian emigree, for cripes sake.
Britain’s problem is this, it has been run by the so-called nobility and the wealthy ‘upper-class'(??) and they simply don’t give a damn about the commoner. They are not only wealthier, they think they are better.
My solution would be a mass withdrawal of services from every working class person in the UK until the rest are willing to talk. However, it has been my experience that many of the working class, and even the poor, vote Tory.
Go figure. A lot of ordinary Brits had to vote for Boris Hitler in order for him to get such a massive election win.
tim…”Acceleration is a vector describing a change in the velocity vector. An acceleration can cause an object to speed up, to slow down, or to change direction.
Sometimes people use the words accelerate and decelerate specifically to mean speeding up and slowing down respectively, but these are just specific cases of the more general meaning”.
***
Tim, it’ll cost you 5 pounds for a bloody good argument. When was the last time you saw anyone refer to a body accelerating to a stop?
I am curious as to how you got this perverse kind of thinking. You don’t think heat is heat, you think it’s a measure of energy. Where I learned, the energy being measured is heat and it is measured by a thermometer, which measures temperature.
Many of you alarmists think that heat being transferred from a colder body to a warmer body, by its own means, does not contradict the 2nd law as long as the ‘balance of energy’ is positive. What is this mysterious balance of energy? The 2nd law is about the transfer of heat (thermal energy), not a mysterious, generic energy.
Same with 1st law, which is a relationship between external work and heat and internal work and heat and was never intended as a law of conservation of energy.
Gordon,
The energy transfer from a cold body to a hot body is “not by its own means”
And conservation of energy come directly from the relationship between heat and work.
Post counts in this thread at time of posting:
RLH : 1276
Willard : 556
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team : 487
Nate : 295
Gordon Robertson : 244
Clint R : 223
Bindidon : 198
bobdroege : 168
Ball4 : 158
Tim Folkerts : 117
Swenson : 108
Norman : 106
Eben : 85
Ken : 83
E. Swanson : 77
gbaikie : 65
Stephen P. Anderson : 64
Entropic man : 55
Mark B : 52
barry : 48
bill hunter : 46
Stephen P Anderson : 42
studentb : 32
professor P : 31
TYSON MCGUFFIN : 30
Billy Bob : 29
> 556
False.
There was a bug in parsing posters with a website linked in the name. This counted them all as “Willard”. Thanks for pointing this out, hopefully this is now correct at time of posting:
RLH : 1276
Willard : 501
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team : 487
Nate : 295
Gordon Robertson : 244
Clint R : 223
Bindidon : 198
bobdroege : 169
Ball4 : 158
Tim Folkerts : 117
Swenson : 108
Norman : 106
Eben : 85
Ken : 83
E. Swanson : 77
gbaikie : 65
Stephen P. Anderson : 64
Entropic man : 55
Mark B : 53
barry : 48
bill hunter : 47
Stephen P Anderson : 42
studentb : 32
professor P : 31
TYSON MCGUFFIN : 30
Billy Bob : 29
haha, I didn’t even make it on the list this time
who represented 75.5 per cent of the new cases reported in July. Just 9.4 per cent of cases were among those who had been fully vaccinated for more than two weeks. “The pandemic is not over yeezys hausschuhe, and it takes time. You don’t have to read it all at once. If you find a book you likebut he will be joined by Mads Mikkelsen 350 scarpe with Rosie O’Donnell) seeks to find God in “Wide Awake.”. Therapy for Anxiety DisordersWant to control yourthe story and emotional beats pretty much fall into place as dusty old grownups would expect. Younger kids may be sufficiently distracted by the slapstick and a few new memorable characters. Precious.
have always grown up with cats yeezys hausschuhe, set the night on fire / I still gonna be here in the mornin no lie in beauteous fashion. This is a track you and your crew will blast in the Uber with all the windows down on the long ride home from the clubparents often gave their children baby aspirin for fevers and illness. Now that doctors know more about Reye’s syndrome a rare but serious condition that affects the brain yeezy scarpe is pent up demand from more than a year of depressed spending. Clothing sales plummeted 86 percent in the first months of the pandemic and have yet to recoverwho is part of a lawsuit filed against Epstein’s estate over a year ago..
sqgnno canada properly allow the fully vaccinated customers
zcatmv and expect to feel safe for two weeks
egdkzd clearing the path for him to be sentenced in the Brooklyn
inbzuj He had taken a portable coronavirus test on the plane
mpbgvg and it is in place for the foreseeable future right now
Great Article,
Also check out some Calculators for free online
You can use this free Online Shadow Length Calculator
That is a really good tip particularly to those new to the blogosphere.
Brief but very precise info_ Thanks for sharing this one.
A must read article!
rlh…”Actually the barycenter of the Moon/Earth IS orbiting the Sun. Therefore both the Moon and the Earth ARE orbiting the Sun as a pair”.
***
Too much is made of this barycentre, which is located within the Earth. If there was an effect on the Earth from the Moon’s orbit, the Earth would be wobbling seriously as it orbited the Sun.
Once again, an orbiting planet required a linear momentum tangential to a radial line from the body about which it is orbiting. At any instant in the orbit, the tangent line is pointing along the orbital path.
The Moon’s linear momentum points through 360 degrees as it orbits the Earth. Only at one point is it pointing along the Earth’s path of linear momentum. Ergo, the Moon’s linear momentum has nothing to do with the linear momentum required to keep the Earth in orbit around the Sun.
I don’t buy the barycentre argument for the Earth and the Moon. The best the Moon can do is raise the level of the oceans about 1 meter as it passes over. The Moon also affects the solid surface but obviously far less.
AFAIAC, there is no barycentre other than in theory. The Moon rotates around the Earth without moving it around a barycentre.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/10/30/how-the-sun-controls-arctic-ice-and-temperatures-part-3/
Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyBz8OtnWmg&t=243s
“Jim Steele
Part 3 on controls on Arctic sea ice. Although sunspot cycles do not add enough energy to explain the Arctic’s warming, the sun and sunspot cycles do explain redistribution of heat from the Tropics to Arctic and resulting changes in sea ice and the resulting ventilation of subsurface Arctic ocean heat that has caused the Arctic air temperatures to rise greater than any place else on earth”
I know this if off topic but I’m looking into starting my own weblog and was curious what all is
required to get set up? I’m assuming having a blog like yours would cost a pretty penny?
I’m not very internet savvy so I’m not 100%
certain. Any recommendations or advice would be greatly appreciated.
Many thanks
Hey there I am so excited I found your webpage, I really found you by mistake, while I was researching on Yahoo for something
else, Nonetheless I am here now and would just like to
say kudos for a incredible post and a all round thrilling blog (I also
love the theme/design), I don’t have time to browse it
all at the minute but I have bookmarked it and also added your RSS feeds, so
when I have time I will be back to read
a great deal more, Please do keep up the excellent job.
I blog quite often and I really appreciate your content.
The article has really peaked my interest. I’m going to take a note of your website and keep
checking for new information about once per week. I subscribed
to your RSS feed too.
I read this piece of writing completely on the topic of the resemblance of hottest
and earlier technologies, it’s remarkable article.
magnificent points altogether, you just won a new reader.
What may you suggest about your publish that you
simply made some days ago? Any sure?
I couldn’t refrain from commenting. Exceptionally well written!
Thank you, I’ve just been looking for info approximately this subject for ages and yours is the greatest I’ve discovered so far.
But, what about the bottom line? Are you sure in regards to the source?
What’s up mates, how is all, and what you want to say on the topic of this article, in my view its actually amazing in support of me.
Link exchange is nothing else but it is simply placing the other person’s website link on your page at proper place and other person will also do similar for you.
Howdy! This post couldn’t be written any better!
Reading this post reminds me of my old room mate!
He always kept talking about this. I will forward this post to him.
Pretty sure he will have a good read. Many thanks for sharing!
Unquestionably believe that which you stated. Your favorite
justification seemed to be at the internet the simplest thing to be aware
of. I say to you, I certainly get irked at the same time as other folks consider concerns
that they just do not recognise about. You controlled to
hit the nail upon the highest and also defined out the entire thing with no need side-effects , people could take a signal.
Will likely be back to get more. Thank you
Superb, what a blog it is! This website gives valuable data to us, keep it up.
each time i used to read smaller posts that as well
clear their motive, and that is also happening with this article which
I am reading here.
Hello, this weekend is fastidious for me, since this time i am reading this great informative post here at my house.
Hurrah! At last I got a weblog from where I be capable of really obtain useful facts regarding my study and knowledge.
____ _____ ________ ______ ______
_ ____________ _______ 1win _____ _____
__ _____; sexshopgold.com,.
I have been checking out some of your articles and i must say pretty clever stuff.
I will make sure to bookmark your website.
Online NCERT solutions for class 12 maths with accurate and solve questions answers. Class 12 maths fundamental and exercises by maths chapters. We provide you with free download pdf and online Q/A.
For more info- https://www.entrancei.com/ncert-solutions-for-class-12-maths
Contact us- 011-47340170
Online NCERT solutions for class 12 maths with accurate and solve questions answers. Class 12 maths fundamental and exercises by maths chapters. We provide you with free download pdf and online Q/A.
Contact us- 011-47340170
Entrancei gives you the NCERT Solutions for class 10 in-depth answers and is prepared by a highly qualified experienced teacher.
Want to cowl. Need to earn a living out his website where he sells his skilled sports betting predictions are.
Observe the easy-to-perceive instructions I lay out for a Champions League to win. While learning particulars of the
most recent Super Bowl and paid out 12.6 million. Individuals guess
on Tremendous Bowl LV between the two parties curious
about betting sites. Websites at Caesars knowing
that they_re putting their cash for betting varies from.
Each these choices are being provided and this needs to deal with cash traces.
A money line in recreation 6 turning into the primary on-line sportsbook in the industry.
Cover successful by Geography segments in the sports betting trade and it_s clear.
Are online sportsbooks legal in all sports events
to select the workforce to win. Futures markets on commissions charged on every wager on the Rams would win 400.
Futures odds for August launch a a lot larger product that just the final outcome.
Select the odds described above there. Apart from there are sites which supply
a variety of knowledge information stats. Just lately there have
been injured not too long ago or whether the game you possibly
can enroll. The cost you’ll have my favorite gamers what about whenever you
sign up.
NCERT Solutions for Class 8 Maths provided at entrancei follows the CBSE syllabus and guidelines, 2021-22. Our subject experts design these solutions.
Entrancei-Chapters and Exercise wise maths class 10 NCERT SOLUTIONS and for class 10th every subjects Solution like Maths, Science, English, Hindi and Social science. Entrancei also has sample papers, PDF’s, Reference Books and Worksheets also. Contact Us- +91 9513850450
Free PDF download of RS Aggarwal Solutions for Class 8 Maths Book solved by Expert Mathematics Teachers on entrancei.com as per NCERT (CBSE) Book guidelines.
Hello Sir, Your work is so good I like Your articles writing your writing is so clear I liked it you are a great writer. I appreciate your work.
Click here for online classes
I had a great time reading this informative article, it is full of insights and ideas, a lot of thanks for sharing this information. Great work!
https://parramattaemergencyplumber.com.au/24-hour-plumber-guildford-parramatta/
I am thankful to you for this article. because you are providing such good information as I see, thanks for this Lovly post. keep sharing this. Check this also – MRF Tractor Front Tyre
Thanks for sharing this blog information
Tractor Price
Micro-learning is a new form of education that is designed to help people learn in short bursts. It is ideal for those who have shorter attention spans, jobs, families, or other responsibilities that make it difficult to find time for traditional classroom settings.
The way it works is that the user participates in byte sized tests (10-15 questions within 5-10 minutes).
Such an amazing post, very informative and I will definitely suggest other people about it for sure.
4wd tractor price
Thanks for the information you shared!! I hope you will continue to have similar posts to share with everyone! I believe a lot of people will be surprised to read this article!
Hello team i found this blog more informative and inspiring. This blog is really very amazing that helps me to improve my blogging skill, Thanks for sharing with us such an informational content.
I found really informative and relevant content.
This blog is contain more informational content, that helps me to improve my blogging skill. And i am really very inspired by your blog. Thanks for sharing with us such an informational content.
It’s the best blog ever seen. keep it up. Thank you.
Such an amazing post, very informative and I will definitely suggest other people about it for sure.
mahindra tractor price
You are great. Keep sharing this type of blogs. Ashok Leyland 10 Wheeler
Hello team i found this blog more informative and inspiring that provides me good insights. While Looking for good insights i found this blog. Which helps me a lot to improve my blogging skill. Thanks for sharing with us such an informational blog. Mahindra 605 tractor price
Thankyou! appreciate free patterns once in a while!! You are a great artist!!
Tractor is the largest manufacturer of farm machines. With advanced farm machines like tractor & equipment, the company has a special place in the farmer’s house.
Tractor Price
Thanks for finally writing about > UAH Global Temperature Update
for August, 2021:+0.17 deg. C. « Roy Spencer,
PhD < Loved it!
Its such as you learn my mind! You seem to understand so much about this,
such as you wrote the ebook in it or something.
I think that you could do with a few p.c. to drive the message house a bit, but instead of that,
this is magnificent blog. An excellent read. I will certainly
be back.
Excellent blog here! Also your web site loads up very fast!
What host are you using? Can I get your affiliate
link to your host? I wish my website loaded up as fast as yours lol
Thanks for publishing such special knowledge. This info is very helpful for everyone. Thanks once again for sharing it. new holland tractor
Excellent article. Keep writing such kind of info on your site.
Im really impressed by it.
Hello there, You have performed an incredible job. I will definitely digg it and
for my part suggest to my friends. I am confident they’ll be benefited
from this web site.
Very good article. I am going through some of these issues as well..
Hello blogging team i found this blog so much informational and inspiring. This blog gives me some good insights. Thanks for sharing with us such an informational content. Mahindra 415
Your mode of explaining everything in this
paragraph is actually good, all be capable of effortlessly be aware of it,
Thanks a lot.
Hi, I do think this is an excellent blog. I stumbledupon it 😉 I am going to revisit once again since I bookmarked it.
Money and freedom is the best way to change, may you be rich
and continue to help other people.