UAH Global Temperature Update for October, 2021:+0.37 deg. C.

November 1st, 2021 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for October, 2021 was +0.37 deg. C, up from the September, 2021 value of +0.25 deg. C.

The linear warming trend since January, 1979 is +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).

Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1991-2020) average for the last 22 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
2021 09 0.25 0.18 0.33 0.09 0.67 0.02 0.37
2021 10 0.37 0.46 0.27 0.33 0.84 0.63 0.06

The full UAH Global Temperature Report, along with the LT global gridpoint anomaly image for October, 2021 should be available within the next several 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


3,190 Responses to “UAH Global Temperature Update for October, 2021:+0.37 deg. C.”

Toggle Trackbacks

  1. Moritz says:

    Hello Roy,

    I have found an error in the temperature analysis of weather stations. correcting this error leads to a large reduction of the warming between 1880 and 2020.

    The corrected temperature curve fits to your data set very well (difference in trend: 0.02°C, correlation coefficient: 0.972)

    I created a pre-print here:
    https://osf.io/huxge/

    What do you think about this?

    Do you have tips for how I can improve the chances for a peer reviewed publication?

    • There were few land weather
      stations between 1880 and 1920
      outside of the US and Europe.

      Ocean measurements were worse.

      Claims to know a global
      average temperature
      before 1920 are lies.

      One might be able to calculate
      a very rough Northern Hemisphere
      average temperature, but not
      with enough accuracy
      for real science.

      Did you mean between 1980 and 2020?

      • Moritz says:

        No I indeed meant since 1880.

        I share your reservations, but I only wanted to address one problem at a time.

        My analysis is just a modification of the analysis performed by GISS.

  2. Bindidon says:

    If it is still correct that there is a 5 month delay between ENSO signals

    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif

    and UAH temperature readings, we should have a last increase for November, followed by a long series of at least 8 consecutive temperature decreases.

    Ich bin gespannt – I am excited

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      “of at least 8 consecutive temperature decreases.”

      Well, perhaps a general downward trend for 8 months. The longest *consecutive* trends for monthly trends have been 5 downward and 5 upward.

      For the 13 month centered average we are currently on a 10 month consecutive downward trend, and it looks like we will have at least a few more (unless temperatures remain high and la nina does not take over).

      • Bindidon says:

        Yes it would indeed be more correct to show at an average over some more months; maybe the best would be to use the same average as for ENSO itself (5 months are used by the Tokyo Climate Center if I well do recall).

    • Matt Dalby says:

      I’m not convinced that there is a correlation, even with a 5 month delay when ENSO is neutral i.e. between -0.5 and +0.5 since the effect of ENSO will be so small that it can be cancelled out by other natural variability.
      The current La Nina started in mid October, and the time lag before it affects global temperatures is probably varies between 4 and 6 months, rather than always being 5 months. Therefore it could be April before temperatures drop significantly, and they could do anything in the mean time although it’s unlikely they will increase every month.
      It’ll be interesting to see if 2022 ends up being cooler than this year, I guess that depends on the strength and longevity of La Nina this winter. Either way it seems certain that 2022 will be cooler than 2020 since 2021 is going to be between roughly 0.13 and 0.18 degrees cooler than 2020 (depending on the next 2 month’s values). I fail to see how the average temperature for a whole year can increase by 0.1 degree after a La Nina. This means that by the end of next year the current cooling trend is likely to be 9+ years.

      • Tim Folkerts says:

        Matt says: “This means that by the end of next year the current cooling trend is likely to be 9+ years.”

        This statement makes little sense to me. What are you trying to say?

        There is a current WARMING trend. There has been a warming trend for the last year. Ie a positive linear regression.
        There was a COOLING trend before that. Starting 1-3 years back and going until OCT 2021, the regression line is downward.
        There was another brief COOLING TREND around 2016.

        But the trend for any length longer than 6.5 years is UPWARD.

        Perhaps you mean something like “Although there is currently a cooling trend if you look back ~ 6 yr, that would extend to ~ 9 yr if we spent a year down near 0.0 on the graph” (which would be true).

    • Richard M says:

      The 4-6 month lag between ENSO and UAH is probably more generally a lag between tropical oceans and UAH. As a result, when the tropics are at long term averages then other things can have a more immediately effect.

      My own view is that the lag is reduced as you move to higher latitudes. As a result the Arctic influence is most immediate. That’s why we generally see UAH bump up this time of year.

      This may be why satellite temperature data shows bigger swings for ENSO than does the surface data. You get a combination of past tropical ocean swings and Arctic swings. When the sea ice starts to increase in a few years we will if my thoughts are valid.

  3. E. Swanson says:

    October saw a blip upward in global temperature, back to what it was for October 2020. The data appears to be back near the long term trend line, though one month doesn’t mean much.

    The Arctic temperature was down slightly from last year, which was consistent with the increase in the yearly sea-ice minimum extent in September, both perhaps the result of all the smoke from forest fires in the NH. The September 2021 Arctic data was below the September 2020 data point.

    • Bindidon says:

      What exactly do you mean with ‘below’?

      I thought 4.92 Mkm^2 would rather be ‘above’ 4.00.

      The same is valid for October: 6.77 vs. 5.33 in 2020.

      • bill hunter says:

        Pronoun references tend to get confused in run on sentences.
        You have to avoid basing your post on a confusing pronoun reference.
        Swanson clearly says temperature was down.

        He also says ice was up. . . .which seems to be in line with the area relationship you provide numbers for.

        The last sentence’s ‘data’ would seem highly probable to be referring to temperature rather than ice area.

    • Bindidon says:

      Sorry, I misunderstood that with

      ” The September 2021 Arctic data was below the September 2020 data point. ”

      you of course have meant UAH’s Arctic anomalies…

    • RLH says:

      “October saw a blip upward in global temperature, back to what it was for October 2020”

      Indeed. Exactly so as

      https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/uah-month-on-month.jpeg

      shows.

  4. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    This year, winter in the US begins on the first of November.
    https://i.ibb.co/8d66Rh7/gfs-o3mr-150-NA-f072.png

  5. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The presence of water vapor at the top of the troposphere evidently has a cooling effect under strong sunlight. Therefore, a drop in humidity at 300 hPa may have the effect of causing the temperature of the continents to rise during the summer season. The opposite effect will occur in winter. Therefore, a period of very low solar activity can result in extreme summer and winter temperatures.
    The plot of relative humidity over the equator (5S-5N) (300 hPa) shows a sharp decline in 2006. In the same year there was a deep decline in the Ap index.
    https://i.ibb.co/B3rrWs8/climindex-217-96-140-193-300-14-4-10.png

  6. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Dont US scientists see a connection between winter ozone distribution and weakening of the geomagnetic field over North America (and South America)?
    http://www.geomag.bgs.ac.uk/images/charts/jpg/polar_n_df.jpg
    Ozone is diamagnetic and as such is repelled by a stronger geomagnetic field. It similarly responds to stronger solar wind. This distribution of ozone guarantees an influx of arctic air deep into the US.
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_t50_nh_f72.png

  7. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    “When the model started with the decreased solar energy and returned temperatures that matched the paleoclimate record, Shindell and his colleagues knew that the model was showing how the Maunder Minimum could have caused the extreme drop in temperatures. The model showed that the drop in temperature was related to ozone in the stratosphere, the layer of the atmosphere that is between 10 and 50 kilometers from the Earths surface. Ozone is created when high-energy ultraviolet light from the Sun interacts with oxygen. During the Maunder Minimum, the Sun emitted less strong ultraviolet light, and so less ozone formed. The decrease in ozone affected planetary waves, the giant wiggles in the jet stream that we are used to seeing on television weather reports.”
    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/7122/chilly-temperatures-during-the-maunder-minimum

  8. Pablo says:

    How interesting! And are there records for every time a box is replaced/renovated? Many thanks, good luck with you getting it published

    • Bindidon says:

      I was about to ask the same question.

      Mr Buesing certainly will be able to publish his genial ideas in some ‘open’ peer review area.

  9. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    All indications are that the NAO this winter may be negative, which will provide snowfall in Western Europe.
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/nao.mrf.obs.gif

  10. TheFinalNail says:

    3rd warmest October in the UAH record without an El Nino in sight. Current warming in the lower troposphere seems to be the result of a modest uptick in ENSO3.4 region sea surface temperatures back in spring. So what sort of heat will the next actual El Nino unleash?

  11. Matt Dalby says:

    As well as providing the linear trend since the start of satellite monitoring I would find it useful to see, and by able to compare other trends, e.g. the previous 30 years compared with the 1st 30 years of data, or the previous 20 years compared with other 20 year periods. Is it possible to show this?

  12. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    On the plus side, the current circulation over North America is rainfall in California.

  13. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    It is very likely that the Nio 3.4 index will drop to -1.5 C in November.
    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png

  14. Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

    1) Last month, Ball4 kept pointing out that measured from space, the temperature of the Earth (by which I mean the entire planet, the surface plus the atmosphere as a whole) is 255 K.

    2) Normally, the point is made that the Earth’s surface temperature is measured to be 288 K, the effective temperature of the Earth is calculated to be 255 K, and so the difference between the two (33 K) must come down to the Greenhouse Effect.

    3) But who said that the calculated temperature of 255 K (the effective temperature) is meant to apply to Earth’s surface in the first place? Why shouldn’t the effective temperature apply to an average of the surface plus the atmosphere as a whole? In other words, why isn’t the calculated 255 K compared to the measured 255 K from 1)? Resulting in a GHE of 0 K.

    4) The calculations to get the 255 K effective temperature use an albedo of 0.3, after all, and an albedo of 0.3 includes taking cloud cover into consideration. Last I was aware clouds are not at the Earth’s surface. So there is nothing in those calculations to lock the effective temperature to the surface of the Earth. In fact, quite the opposite.

    • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

      I may be wrong, but as the humidity in the upper troposphere over the continents drops, satellites measure the surface temperature, which must be high on the continents in summer with cloudless skies.
      Look at the Northern Hemisphere specific humidity in the upper stratosphere (300 hPa) since 2000.
      https://i.ibb.co/B4RZWZ5/climindex-217-96-138-234-304-13-58-29.png
      Look at the temperature over North America in October. An anomaly as high as 0.84?

    • gbaikie says:

      “3) But who said that the calculated temperature of 255 K (the effective temperature) is meant to apply to Earth’s surface in the first place?…”

      Who is to blame?
      I would guess it was that committee.
      {{A committee, claiming to be scientific, put to paper something called the greenhouse effect hypotheses- which later due to it’s commercial success, was promoted to the greenhouse effect theory}}.

      And perhaps, probably, a lot of drug use was involved.
      And the drug parties continue to this day. And one currently in England will probably cause various riots.

    • Willard says:

      > who said that the calculated temperature of 255 K (the effective temperature) is meant to apply to Earth’s surface in the first place?

      Kiddo can wish a dragonesque pony all he wants, SB will still apply:

      Zero-dimensional models express with a single equation the balance between the energy in and out of the Earth:

      [EMB] (Disc) x (Sun) x (1 Albedo) = (Area) x (Emissivity) x (SB) x (Temp + Conv)4

      Disc is the Earths shadow, Sun the Solar constant, Area the Earths area, SB the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, Temp the Earths temperature, and Conv the conversion constant from Kelvin to Celsius. The notation is adapted from (Kleeman); (ACS), (Lindsay) and (UCAR) provide good intros; (Kiehl & Trenberth) remains the Climateball battleground.

      https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/

      The UCAR reference leads here:

      https://scied.ucar.edu/earth-system/planetary-energy-balance-temperature-calculate

      It’s really not that complex.

      • Clint R says:

        From your link that you don’t understand, Dud: “Based on this calculation, Earth’s expected average global temperature is well below the freezing point of water!”

        That should tell you there’s something wrong with the “calculation”. But, since it comes from your cult, and since you’re a braindead cult idiot, you swallow it whole.

        • Willard says:

          On the contrary, Pup: that should tell Sky Dragon Cranks that they got no case.

          Where’s water on Bare Earth, btw?

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          “Based on this calculation, Earth’s expected average global temperature is well below the freezing point of water!”

          …and that expected average global temperature of 255 K is indeed the measured temperature of the Earth, as seen from space. See 1).

          In which case, the Earth is the temperature we expect it to be. No 33 K greenhouse effect. The error is in thinking that the calculated temperature of 255 K applies to Earth’s surface. The effective temperature calculation has nothing in it that ties it to the Earth’s surface. In fact, since it includes a value for albedo of 0.3, due to cloud cover, it clearly applies to the temperature of the entire Earth plus atmosphere ensemble.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Not bad, overall.

            “that expected average global temperature of 255 K is indeed the measured temperature of the Earth, as seen from space.”
            Excellent.

            “The error is in thinking that the calculated temperature of 255 K applies to Earth’s surface. ”
            Pretty good.
            I don’t think anyone thinks quite the way you imply (at least not anyone who understands the physics involved). The calculated temperature of 255 K applies to Earth’s ‘radiating surface’ — the layer(s) that actually generates the radiation.
            For some wavelengths (eg the ‘atmospheric window’) that surface is the physical surface when the skies are clear (which averages well above 255 K). When cloudy, that radiation comes from the tops of the clouds (which probably averages around 255 K, but I don’t know for sure). For other wavelengths (eg the 15um CO2 band) that layer is 10-12 km up, near the tropopause (around 220K). It is a weighted average of these temperatures that is 255.

            “it clearly applies to the temperature of the entire Earth plus atmosphere ensemble.”
            No. As above, it implies that the weighted average of the radiating layers is 255 K.
            As a counter-example, the effective temperature of Venus is LOWER than earth because of a higher albedo. We can’t conclude that the “temperature of the entire VENUS plus atmosphere ensemble” is thus cooler than for earth.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            So the Earth is the temperature it’s calculated to be. No 33K GHE.

          • Entropic man says:

            The emission temperature varies with the emitter. Emission from CO2 is from the upper tropopause at 220K. Water vapour emits in the lower tropopause at 260K and the surface emits through the atmospheric window at an average of 288C.

            Together they average out to an emission temperature of 255K, giving an output of 239W/m^2 which almost balances the 240W/m^2 incoming after allowing for albedo.

            Without the GHGs the emission would all be from the surface, the average surface emission would be 240W/m^2 and the average surface temperature 255K.

            Instead, the surface averages 288C and The surface emission is about 500W/m^2. The conventional view is that the surface is 33C warmer than otherwise expected because of GHGs.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “Without the GHGs the emission would all be from the surface, the average surface emission would be 240W/m^2 and the average surface temperature 255K.”

            The 255 K effective temperature is calculated using an albedo of 0.3. An albedo of 0.3 includes cloud cover. That means the 255 K effective temperature does not apply to the surface of the Earth. There are no clouds on the surface of the Earth, you see.

          • Clint R says:

            Ent, what are you trying here?

            upper tropopause?

            lower tropopause?

            288C?

            surface emission is about 500W/m^2?

            What’s wrong with getting something CORRECT?

          • Willard says:

            See, Pup?

            You’re trolling again.

            Please desist.

          • gbaikie says:

            –Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:
            November 1, 2021 at 5:18 PM
            So the Earth is the temperature it’s calculated to be. No 33K GHE.–

            The 33 K number is based on the committee’s failure to account for the imagined difference.

            But instead of being in icehouse climate with average ocean temperature being 3.5 C, what if we were in Greenhouse global climate with the ocean being 15 C.
            We would still roughly absorb and emit about 240 watts per square meter. And global average surface temperature would be well over 20 C.
            Perhaps the committee were lost in time- and just 100 million years, off.

            Still wrong, but it could have seemed like a more reasonable hypothesis.

        • Willard says:

          One of the Sky Dragon Cranks’ errors is in thinking we can calculate how much energy gets out of the model without taking into account what gets in. And since Kiddo lost his Moon argument at least until Flop gets back, he’s trying to recruit Christos in his trolling. Problem is that he can’t follow equations.

          This should be fairly transparent to anyone who has any Climateball experience.

          • Swenson says:

            Wearisome Wee Willy,

            You have finally said something correct.

            Your bumbling ragtag mob of SkyDragon Cranks (also more widely known as climate cranks, or climate crackpots, are in error thinking that calculating anything at all, in regard to climate models, has any meaning in the real world.

            Even Gavin Schmidt had to resort to blaming people for not behaving as he thought they should, to explain the failure of Nature to obey the models.

            Carry on evading, Run away from reality, just like Gavin Schmidt ran away from a debate with a meteorologist. Propaganda is one thing, reality quite another.

            Are you still denying that the Earth cooled from the molten state to its present temperature? Got a model to back your denialist stupidity? No?

            That’s because you are retarded and gullible enough to worship a cavorting crowd of fumbling buffoons, who pretend they smarter than everyone else. Why else would one of the buffoons claim he was a Nobel laureate – in Court documents, no less!

            Carry on being a fool. It suits you.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            Mike Flynn,

            One recent thing that is obviously correct is that you’re the Mike Flynn the Climateball world knows and loves.

            And you’re still playing dumb about whom I refer to as Sky Dragon Cranks. They’re the ones who, like you dear Mike Flynn, deny the Tyndall Effect.

            Aw diddums!

          • Swenson says:

            Wombling Wee Willy,

            You really are descending to new depths of idiotic fantasy now.

            What particular form of mental affliction leads you think that I would deny the existence of “The Tyndall effect is light scattering by particles in a colloid or in a very fine suspension. . . . ” – Wikipedia.

            Maybe you are referring to the mythical and imaginary “Tyndall Effect” which is assumed to be the basis of the equally mythical and imaginary “GHE”. Is that the one in your fantasy?

            As to “Sky Dragon Cranks”, just making stuff up as you go along merely reinforces the fact that you truly detached from reality. Next you’ll be trying to convince people that cooling results in heating, that Gavin Schmidt is a “climate scientist”, or that Michael Mann is a Nobel laureate!

            Sorry, even you souldn’t be that deluded, could you?

            Oh, wait . . .

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            Millions of Fleas,

            I’m glad you ask:

            http://blog.ametsoc.org/news/goodbye-greenhouse-gases-hello-tyndall-gases/

            You fell into it.

            Sorry!

          • Swenson says:

            Weary Wee Willy,

            Presumably some other member of the SkyDragon cult making up crap.

            Let me guess – redefine the Greenhouse Effect because it has nothing to do with greenhouses, and call it the Tyndall Effect, because it has nothing to do with Tyndall!

            In the meantime, demonstrate your lack of knowledge of physics by misunderstanding Tyndall’s work, and compound the error by not knowing that the “Tyndall Effect” has already been used to describe a real effect!

            Carry on Silly Billy Willy. Try turning dogshit into honey with the power of your will!

            You really are dimwitted as well as delusional, aren’t you?

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            Malcontent Fiction,

            You say–

            “Let me guess”

            No, I won’t!

            You got to click and read!

            Then you’re gonna realize how silly your guess was.

            Cheers.

        • Clint R says:

          I forgot to mention my new policy: In order to keep my number of comments down, I no longer respond to immature, inaccurate, incompetent trolls. Responsible comments/questions are always welcome.

          Again, from Dud’s link, they never mentioned the calculation was for an imaginary black body. They used the word “object”. The implication was that all objects absorb as a black body. They use such nonsense to fool idiots.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      “1) Last month, Ball4 kept pointing out that measured from space, the temperature of the Earth (by which I mean the entire planet, the surface plus the atmosphere as a whole) is 255 K.”

      No. 255 K would be a weighted average temperature of the layers that actually do the radiating (which varies by wavelengths). It is not some average of the “whole atmosphere”.

      “3) But who said that the calculated temperature of 255 K (the effective temperature) is meant to apply to Earth’s surface in the first place?”
      The 255K applies to the effective “radiating surface”. With no atmosphere, the ‘radiating surface’ would be the physical surface. And the physical surface would have an effective temp of 255K. Even with an atmosphere, if there were no GHGs (or clouds) the radiating surface would STILL be the physical surface.

      In such cases, “the calculated temperature of 255 K (the effective temperature) is meant to apply to Earth’s [physical] surface.”

      But with GHGs (and/or clouds), then the 255K STOPS applying to the surface physical surface. It is the presence of radiation from higher up in the cooler atmosphere that allows the physical surface to be above 255 K while keeping the effective temperature at 255 K.

      “So there is nothing in those calculations to lock the effective temperature to the surface of the Earth. In fact, quite the opposite.”>/i>
      Yes! The presence of GHGs REMOVES this requirement, forcing the surface to be warmer to balance the radiation from the cooler clouds and GHGs.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        “No. 255 K would be a weighted average temperature of the layers that actually do the radiating (which varies by wavelengths). It is not some average of the “whole atmosphere”.”

        It is the temperature of the Earth plus atmosphere as measured from space. Since it is measured from space, obviously only “those layers that actually do the radiating” will contribute to the average. Thought that kind of went without saying, Tim.

        “The 255K applies to the effective “radiating surface”. With no atmosphere, the ‘radiating surface’ would be the physical surface. And the physical surface would have an effective temp of 255K. Even with an atmosphere, if there were no GHGs (or clouds) the radiating surface would STILL be the physical surface.”

        Tim, the calculations for the 255 K involve using an albedo of 0.3. That includes cloud cover. Otherwise the albedo would be lower, and the effective temperature higher. So the effective temperature of 255 K does not apply to the surface of the Earth. No clouds on the surface, Tim, they are all up in the atmosphere.

        • Willard says:

          > Otherwise

          If only the Earth was as bare as the Moon.

          Things would be great on Earth.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          What you said is “(by which I mean the entire planet, the surface plus the atmosphere as a whole) “.

          It is NOT obvious that when you say “the atmosphere as a whole” that you mean “not the atmosphere as a whole, but only the parts that are radiating.” But at least we now see eye to eye.

          “So the effective temperature of 255 K does not apply to the surface of the Earth. “
          You are going off on a tangent. We could get into all sorts of discussions about what the albedo MIGHT BE under various other conditions.

          The point is that we KNOW the albebo now. We know the radiating surface is 255 K. We know the physical surface is warmer. We know this is (at least in part) due to the presences of GHGs in the atmosphere. Speculating about other conditions could takes us down too many other rabbit holes too numerous to count.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No, Tim, I am not “going off on a tangent”. I am simply reiterating the parts of my original comment that you seemed to deliberately avoid responding to. So if anything I am the one trying to keep the topic of this sub-thread on its original subject (my comment) and you are the one going off on a tangent.

            The 255 K effective temperature should not be compared to the measured surface temperature of 288 K to come up with this supposed 33 K difference. The 33 K is definitely wrong. As I explained.

          • Clint R says:

            “We know the radiating surface is 255 K.”

            Where is that “255K surface” you know so much about, Folkerts?

            “In your imagination” won’t cut it.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “The 33 K is definitely wrong. As I explained.”

            The 33K is what it is — correct for what it tries to do. It uses the time-honored approach of “all other things being equal.” So if the ONLY change is the IR properties of the atmosphere (keeping albedo, emissivity, mass of atmosphere, thermal conductivity, etc the same) then the 255 K value accurately describes what the ‘effective temperature’ of the physical surface would be.

            And 288 K is the measured temperature. And 33 K is the difference.

            I completely agree that simply removing GHGs would NOT keep “all things equal” but that is a separate issue. Then we would have to make all sorts of additional stipulations about exactly what we are changing. That would be a fascinating question, but well beyond our scope here.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “…then the 255 K value accurately describes what the ‘effective temperature’ of the physical surface would be.”

            Absolutely not, Tim. The 255 K value should not be applied to the physical surface because the calculations to get that value use an albedo of 0.3, meaning that cloud cover is included. There are no clouds at the physical surface, they are all up in the atmosphere.

          • Clint R says:

            “…the 255 K value accurately describes what the ‘effective temperature’ of the physical surface would be.”

            We still don’t know where this 255K surface is, Folkerts.

          • Willard says:

            Psst, Pup:

            There’s too much empty trolling right now from you.

            Let Kiddo realize the silliness of his new “but surface” meme, all by himself or with the help of Tim.

            Take a breather.

        • Ken says:

          255K is a calculation that is based on an estimate of energy reaching earth from the sun.

          When comparing the difference between the sun and the earth the difference between surface of earth and surface of clouds is effectively zero.

          The albedo is an important factor if you want to get a reasonable wild assed guess of 255K.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Nothing in the calculation specifies that the 255 K “should be” what we expect the surface temperature to be. Instead, you could equally well claim that the calculation specifies that the 255 K “should be” what we expect the temperature of the Earth plus atmosphere to be. And the temperature of the Earth plus atmosphere, as measured from space, is 255 K. So the Earth is the temperature we expected it to be. No 33 K GHE.

          • Willard says:

            I predict that Kiddo will be constantly repeating his new pet line this month.

      • Clint R says:

        Folkerts, I’m sure all that nonsense will sound good to your cult, but it’s all “hand-waving”.

        There is no “weighted average temperature of the layers that actually do the radiating”.

  15. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The polar vortex in the south is raging. It’s strengthening for spring!
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_UGRD_ANOM_OND_SH_2021.png
    Very low stratospheric temperatures in the south.
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_OND_SH_2021.png
    For the second year in a row, a huge ozone hole in the south that will persist into December.
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_plot.png

  16. Eben says:

    You cannot look at Nino 3.4 as the only factor that drives everything. The global SST has a lot to do with the temperature,
    in the first 6 month of the year the global SST rose to +.3 and then stayed there for the rest of the year, that is why the temperature started going back up after the first LaNina fizzled and it is spiking right now.

    https://i.postimg.cc/mg0hPLQF/mayglobal.png
    https://i.postimg.cc/TYKRn82j/octglobal.png

  17. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The polar vortex in the north behaves differently than in the south. There was already a surge that slowed the vortex in the upper stratosphere, which translates into disturbances in the lower layers.
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_UGRD_ANOM_OND_NH_2021.png
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_OND_NH_2021.png

  18. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Such large anomalies over the continents increasingly convince me that during periods of low solar activity, as humidity in the upper troposphere decreases, anomalies near the surface will increase, and this will be true in both summer and winter.
    Already a large high is visible over central Canada and the US.
    https://i.ibb.co/V3tpMZT/gfs-mslpa-Norm-us-1.png

    • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

      Judging by North American pressure in November, the troposphere anomaly over the US may change sign.

  19. AaronS says:

    When you remove the linear trend of +0.14 C/decade, the 1997-1998 El Nino remains an outlier in this data set. This is interesting to me in the same detrended data set the pattern from 2015 to Nov 2021 has a negative stair step (two steps) that appears most similar to the negative stair step pattern (three steps) from 1987 to 1997. It will be interesting to see if there is another big El Nino after this La Nina ends.

  20. Bindidon says:

    Last month, a clever guy posted on this blog a copy of this picture, coming from a WUWT thread:

    https://149366104.v2.pressablecdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Model-46-run-hot.-Legates-12.10.21-Heartland-720×419.png

    The graph was produced by David Legates (Heartland, so so)

    *
    Commenter bdgwx posted a more plausible version of that, using some more models in KNMI for his averaging:

    https://i.imgur.com/egqAmA2.png

    Sounds a little bit more fair, doesn’t it?

  21. Swenson says:

    Tim Folkerts wrote earlier –

    “Yes! The presence of GHGs REMOVES this requirement, forcing the surface to be warmer to balance the radiation from the cooler clouds and GHGs.”

    So, heating without heat! Radiation from cooler clouds and GHGs makes the surface hotter, does it?

    Except at nighttime, in shade, indoors, when it is cloudy, raining, snowy, where it is cold, etc.

    What a load of bollocks! An effect which cannot be described, observed, or measured, and seems to depend on direct sunlight to work its magic! Uri Geller’s spoon bending fades into insignificance, compared with Tim’s GHG miracle.

    I’m surprised Tim doesn’t boil his tea by exposing it to the radiation from ice blocks! He might be gullible, but least he is delusional.

    • Clint R says:

      The idiot Folkerts once said two ice cubes, each emitting 315 W/m^2, could raise the temperature to 325k, because the fluxes would add!

      So, I guess the idiot would believe he could boil his tea if he added more ice….

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      Do you not understand the idea of an “average”?

      The earth, with it’s current albedo, radiates to space with an “effective temperature” of 255 K, ie an average power of 240 W/m^2. Some of the radiation comes from the the troposphere, where the temperature is ~ 200 K, which emits LESS than 240 W/m^2.

      If there is an average of 240 W/m^2, and part of that is LESS than 240 W/m^2 then …. part of it must be GREATER than 240 W/m^2. And hence some of it must be WARMER than 255 K.

      No “heating without heat”. No violations of the laws of thermodynamics. No problems with day & night.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        …and no Greenhouse Effect.

        • gbaikie says:

          “…and no Greenhouse Effect.”

          Just because the “Greenhouse effect theory” is wrong, doesn’t
          mean there is no greenhouse effect.

          One could say the greenhouse effect is poorly defined, ie that greenhouse effect is only radiant effects of gases, gases which the cargo cult has called greenhouse gases.
          Of course Ozone doesn’t function as greenhouse gas, but it’s called a greenhouse gas {by the insane cargo cult}.
          Likewise, the acid of clouds of Venus is also called a greenhouse gas {and obviously not even a gas; or nor acting as greenhouse gas according to cargo cult}.
          As is also the case with Earth clouds- our clouds are not a gas.

          Greenhouse effect was term, long before the committee wrote their dimwitted paper.
          As was the expression, global warming.

          I don’t know much of history of the term greenhouse effect, but it seems it applied to question of why Europe was not frozen wasteland {like most of Canada]. But the answer was Europe was warmer, because it is warmed by the Gulf Stream.

          One call the tropical ocean heat engine, as producing a greenhouse effect.

          But one call this greenhouse effect as being a rather vague term- as it has remained, vague.

          If add more atmosphere to Mars, it should increase global air temperature. Or it should make global air temperature more uniform.
          Though as far as humans are concerned, such uniformity could make Mars effectively colder. Or humans wearing spacesuits, could have add heaters or they would freeze to death. And buildings would lose more heat due to convectional heat loss.

          A actual greenhouse on Mars should get quite warm, but add more atmosphere and it would be cooler actual greenhouse.

          And adding say just 20% to Mars atmosphere would make water boil at a significantly higher temperature {which might be useful}. Of course one could do this within a dome only and also lower temperature of boiling temperature of water and then not need to add 5 trillion tonnes atmosphere to the entire planet {quite expensive thing to do}.

      • Clint R says:

        Do you not understand that a rambling, pointless comment, misplaced, may be a sign of a meltdown?

        • Willard says:

          Why are you still trolling and make all your fans sad, Pup?

          • Swenson says:

            Wandering Wee Willy,

            How are those English expression lessons going, kiddo?

            You probably need to brush up, if you expect strangers to accept that you are wise and respected.

            Or is it just sloppiness that results in some of your bizarre ungrammatical comments?

            Tut, tut.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            Our favorite unilingual Aussie from under!

            *Rounds of applause.*

          • Swenson says:

            Wee Willy Idiot,

            I told you to learn English grammar, but you were too stupid to pay attention.

            Now see what your ignorance has brought about –

            “Our favorite unilingual Aussie from under!” Really? Under what, pray tell?

            You are really getting sloppier, dummy!

            By the way, I am multi-lingual, making me definitely not your fantasy creation.

            So carry on. Maybe you can connect with reality sometime, and throw a few facts in to balance your fantasy nonsense. Sound fair?

            [chortles at delusional fool]

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            Mike Flynn,

            Now you got my attention.

            Tell me about this other language you pretend to know.

      • Swenson says:

        Timmy Peabrain,

        The Earth has cooled to its present temperature from the molten state.

        If you can produce any non-fantasy science to show otherwise, I will be exceptionally surprised. Try your hardest.

        Playing semantic tricks by using “averages” as an excuse, just looks stupid to rational people. You might just as well say that because minimum surface temperatures are around -90 C, and maximum surface temperatures are around 90 C (real surface, not the idiotic climate crank “surface”), then the “average” must be 0 C!

        Stupid, isn’t it? Just about as stupid as believing that increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer and the Sun makes the thermometer hotter!

        • Ken says:

          The earth might have been in a molten state at one point in its history. The surface of the earth has since cooled and is now entirely under the influence of climate that is driven by sun and ocean currents. Its a ridiculous argument to make that the earth surface is at its present temperature and is continuing to cool linearly from a molten state billions of years ago.

          • Bindidon says:

            Ken

            Even when Swenson was nicknamed Mike Flynn some years ago, we could read this nonsense endlessly, just as often as his completely stupid saying

            ” … increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer and the Sun makes the thermometer hotter “.

            Like Robertson and Clint R, Swenson is only on this blog to spread self-centered nonsense.

          • PhilJ says:

            Hello Ken,

            “Its a ridiculous argument to make that the earth surface is at its present temperature and is continuing to cool linearly from a molten state billions of years ago.”

            why is that ridiculous Ken?

            Do you not think the Earth is continuing to cool as entropy demands?

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          “The Earth has cooled to its present temperature from the molten state.”
          True. And completely unrelated to anything I said.

          The earth’s surface has also WARMED to to present temperature from the last glacial period. The surface has been warmer and coolere than the present temperature many times in the past. This is actually an interesting and important observation. We know climate can as does change.

          Rational people might wonder why you fixate on 4+ billion years ago and ignore all the ups and downs since then.

          Rational people might also wonder why you think I will disagree with something that:
          1) is obviously true
          2) I have explicitly agreed with in the past.

          “You might just as well say that because minimum surface temperatures are around -90 C, and maximum surface temperatures are around 90 C, then the “average” must be 0 C!”
          You need to brush up on your critical thinking skills. The actual analogy to what I said would be “… then the “average” must be 0 C between -90C and + 90C!”

          If even one data point is BELOW average, then at least one data point must be ABOVE average.
          If some of the radiation is BELOW 255K, then at least some radiation must be ABOVE 255K.

          This is really BASIC math knowledge!

    • Willard says:

      Mike Flynn,

      Modicum of Finesse,

      Start here:

      The TOA albedo is one of the main components of the Earths energy budget and thus our understanding of it follows the evolution of our understanding of the energy balance of Earth. The relatively long history of studies of the Earths radiation balance can be thought of as occurring in two main eras delineated by the beginning of the space age with the launch of Earth-orbiting satellites. Excellent reviews of the history of the Earths Radiation Budget (ERB) are given by Hunt et al. [1986] for the presatellite era and by House et al. [1986] for the satellite era before the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) [Barkstrom, 1984] and by Kandel and
      Viollier [2005, 2010] for the post-ERBE era. Our current understanding of solar irradiance variability and the
      measurement of it has also been reviewed in a number of publications [e.g., Myre et al., 2013], and both Stephens et al. [2012] and Stevens and Schwartz [2012] provide a broader review of Earths energy balance including the ERB.

      https://webster.eas.gatech.edu/Papers/albedo2015.pdf

      Best of luck!

      • Swenson says:

        Witless Wee Willy,

        Any “paper” that mentions “climate change feedback” is obviously written by delusional climate cranks.

        Quite apart from that, people who think that planetary albedo can stop a planet from cooling, are off with the fairies. Try appealing to meaningfull authority next time.

        Nonsense papers involving “energy balance” are quite meaningless.

        How are you getting on supporting your denial of the fact that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature from the molten state? You could always try diversion, and pretend that reality doesn’t exist, I suppose.

        • Willard says:

          Mike Flynn,

          Mediocre Fool,

          You forgot to throw your fists around and shout “I tell you!”

          That way your proof by assertion would be more convincing!

          Oh! Oh! Oh!

          • Swenson says:

            Wee Willy Wanker,

            All you have is avoidance now?

            Can’t even bring yourself to deny that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature from the molten state?

            That would make you look exceptionally foolish and delusional, would it not?

            Your best ploy might be to imitate an ostrich, by burying your head in your ass, then running round in circles making muffled noises roughly translated as “But I’m not an asshat, I tell you!”.

            Keep up the denial, Young Puppy. Expect the odd derisory kicking by the Big Dogs from time to time. They are just trying to help you along the path to reality.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            Masterly Feeble,

            Everybody knows about entropy.

            Do you have a point? No?

            I thought so.

            Enjoy your evening,

          • Swenson says:

            Wasted Wee Willy,

            Keep attempting diversions with irrelevancies.

            Still denying that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature from the molten state?

            Is that more due to stupidity, delusion, or the grovelling desire to be recognised as wise and superior by othe SkyDragon cult members?

            You are still detached from reality, either way.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            Mud Fisticuff,

            You’re the diversion.

            Please!

    • Craig T says:

      Swenson says: “So, heating without heat!”

      More like a jacket keeping you warm by reducing the loss of heat.

  22. CAD says:

    Might be following a similar pattern to 2020. Last year we saw minor uptick at the onset of the anti-nino.

    Could the increase of trade winds at the onset of las nina distribute concentrated equatorial energy to a wider area thus registering as a temporary net uptick of radiation measured aloft?

    This year the process commences slightly cooler than 2020 around September and follows a similar shape to date at 2m.

    http://climatlas.com/temperature/jra55/jra55_globe_t2m_2021.png

    Probably not worth getting bogged down in the noise tho. 2020 then had some SSWs n stuff so it’s a crap shoot.

  23. Torbjrn Pettersson says:

    The energy in is 0.32% larger due to atmospheric refraction.
    The atmosphere is acting like a positive lens bending solar light towards the center of Earth

  24. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    A front from the north will cause a “lake effect” and snowfall in the Great Lakes region.
    https://i.ibb.co/0JfLs8S/Screenshot-2.png

  25. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The next graph shows a clear increase in the geopotential height above the Arctic Circle at 500 hPa also since 2006.
    https://i.ibb.co/S6xLDGB/climindex-217-96-138-234-303-0-47-55.png
    https://psl.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/data/timeseries/timeseries1.pl

  26. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Shouldn’t the effective temperature be measured at half the mass level of the troposphere? The surface temperature can be calculated using the mean vertical temperature gradient.
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_ALL_NH_2021.png

    • Ireneusz Palmowski says:

      If we assume that the effective temperature is -18.5 C at an altitude of about 5 km and the temperature gradient is 6,5 C, we get a surface temperature of :-18.1 plus 32.5 equals 14,4 C.

  27. McGee says:

    There are uncertainties, of course.

    But CERES data indicate that since 2001, absorbed solar has increased at a rate nearly twice that of greenhouse gas forcing.

    I’ve analyzed them here (see figures 3c & 3e):

    https://climateobs.substack.com/p/clouds-and-earth-radiance

  28. Clint R says:

    The AGW nonsense is built on layer after layer of distortion of science and perversions of reality. Last month, it was pointed out that the “33K” is one of those layers. The “33K” arises from subtracting the calculated temperature of an imaginary sphere (255K) from Earth’s REAL average surface temperature of 288K. The 33K difference has no meaning because it makes no sense to compare two completely different things.

    To support that nonsense, several of the idiots claim that there really is a “255K surface”, but they just can’t find it!

    So while they’re looking for their imaginary “255K surface”, let’s destroy another layer of the AGW nonsense.

    In the so-called “Earth’s Energy Imbalance” (EEI), they reduce the solar energy so much that it would not be able to melt ice. They end up with a value of about 163 W/m^2, when the actual solar constant is about 1370 W/m^2. (The BB equilibrium temperature for 163 W/m^2 is 232K, -42C, -43F.) Of course, some of the reduction is legitmate, due to reflections from the atmosphere and surface, called “albedo”. But MOST of the reduction is invalid, bogus, and unethical nonsense. They divide the solar incoming by 4! This division is based on the fact that a sphere has 4 times the area of its disk.

    But, you can NOT divide flux! Flux is not a conserved quantity. Flux is NOT the same a energy. They get the geometry right, but they get the physics WRONG. A simple example is helpful:

    Situation 1 — A one square meter blackbody plate, perfectly insulated on the back is in deep space.

    Flux absorbed by plate = 960 W/m^2
    Energy absorbed = 960 Joules/sec
    Equilibrium temperature = 361K

    Situation 2 — 4 blackbody plates, each 1 square meter in area, perfectly insulated on backs. Now, we divide the flux by 4, “since we have 4 times the area”.

    Flux absorbed = 960/4 W/m^2 = 240W/m^2
    Energy absorbed = 240*4 = 960 Joules/sec
    Equilibrium temperature = 255K

    Notice that in both situations, the energy in/out is the same, but the temperatures are NOT the same. There’s a 106K difference!

    The AGW crap is based on nonsense, filled with nonsense, and topped with nonsense.

    [To refrain from commenting too much, I no longer respond to immature, inaccurate, incompetent trolls. Responsible comments/questions are always welcome.]

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      You could argue that on a second by second basis, the Earth emits 240 W/m^2 from its entire surface area, whilst it absorbs 480 W/m^2 over the lit hemisphere. The flux (W/m^2) values are not equal (obviously 240 does not equal 480) but the energy in and out balances, because the area of the lit hemisphere is only half that of the sphere. Full calculation here:

      https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/an-earth-day-reminder-global-warming-is-only-50-of-what-models-predict/#comment-680669

      • Clint R says:

        AND, the 480 W/m^2 results in more realistic results for surface temperature — 303K instead of 255K.

        But, reality does not fit the agenda….

      • Ball4 says:

        “The “33K” arises from subtracting the calculated temperature of an imaginary sphere (255K)”

        No Clint R as you have been told many times, the “33K” arises from subtracting the real brightness temperature of a real oblate spheroid (Earth and atm. system) measured at 255K from Earth’s REAL average L&O near surface air thermometer temperature of 288K.

        It is Clint R that isn’t capable of finding that 255K surface since the data measured from it has also been pointed out to Clint.

        ” the Earth emits 240 W/m^2 from its entire surface area”

        Even DREMT can find the 255K surface for Earth and atm. system, Clint should ask DREMT how to find that surface.

    • Nate says:

      “Situation 1 — A one square meter blackbody plate, perfectly insulated on the back is in deep space.

      Flux absorbed by plate = 960 W/m^2
      Energy absorbed = 960 Joules/sec
      Equilibrium temperature = 361K

      Situation 2 — 4 blackbody plates, each 1 square meter in area, perfectly insulated on backs. Now, we divide the flux by 4, ‘since we have 4 times the area’.

      Flux absorbed = 960/4 W/m^2 = 240W/m^2
      Energy absorbed = 240*4 = 960 Joules/sec
      Equilibrium temperature = 255K”

      What is this stupidity?!

      In situation 2 there are 4 plates, the total input energy (power) absorbed is 960 W/m^2 * 4 m^2

      = 3840 W not 960 W!

      • Clint R says:

        Nate proves once again how braindead he is.

        Energy absorbed = 240*4 = 960 Joules/sec

      • Nate says:

        Nope. Nothing you say is rational.

        • stephen p anderson says:

          >Nope. Nothing you say is rational.

          Willard’s a propagandist. “Rational” isn’t in his job description.

          • Willard says:

            Nate was talking about Pup, Troglodyte. Nice try.

            Did you know that from 1850 to 2019, 2,400 gigatons of CO2 were emitted by human activity, 950 gigatons went into the atmosphere, and the rest has been absorbed by oceans and land?

            I kid you not.

          • Swenson says:

            Wavery Wee Willy,

            Quite apart from the fact that you just make all this crap up as you go (nobody knows how many tons of anything was emitted in 1851 due to human activity), your stupid statement begs the question – So what?

            No answer?

            Who could possibly be surprised by that?

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            Mache Fact,

            Thank you for JAQing off.

          • Swenson says:

            Wee Willy Whack-off,

            Back to puerile irrelevancies of the masturbatory kind, are you?

            Telling obvious lies, desperately trying to get them accepted as fact by saying “I kid you not.”, is not likely to work unless your audience accepts that you are wise and worthy of respect.

            I suppose some mentally retarded climate crackpots fall into that category, but even you would be hard pressed to name any.

            Have you managed to convince your dim-witted astrophysicist mate Ken Rice that the Earth has not cooled from the molten state yet? If you can’t even convince him, how do you think you’ll fare with people who accept reality?

            Got any more porkies to purvey? Maybe you could claim that you could heat a planet (or anything at all), with CO2!

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            Mike Flynn,

            TL;DR.

            Oh! Oh! Oh!

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Wiltard,

            It’s all been absorbed by the Oceans and Land and is only a blip compared to natural emissions. You really should pay attention.

          • Willard says:

            950 gigatons ain’t a blip, Trogodyte.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      Your “Situation 2” is ambiguous. Do you mean …

      a) 4 individual plates, each directly facing the sun?
      In that case, each plate would still absorb 960 W, and still be 361 K. No one would “divide by 4” and imaging the temperature would be 255 K.

      But this is not at all like the earth; not every part of earth faces the sun all the time.

      b) 4 plates, connected to form a square?
      One face directly toward the sun, receiving 960 W. One face directly away from the sun, receiving 0 W. Two faces parallel to the sun’s rays, also receiving 0 W. This is a BIT more like the actual situation for earth; some places light and some dark. The average power would be (960 + 0 + 0 + 0)/4 = 240 W on each 1×1 plate and the average temperature would be a frigid (361 + 3 + 3 + 3) / 4 = 93 K (not 255 K).

      Perhaps we could give it a 90 degree turn every few minutes so all sides are lit part of the time. Then each side gets an average of 240 W. This is a EVEN MORE like earth, with daylight shifting as the object turns. Depending on various factor (how often it turns, thermal conductivity, etc) each side will have an average temperature between 93K and 255 K.

      The more we make the situation like earth, the more closely the results match earth (assuming people are competent enough to do the calculations correctly).

  29. TechnoCaveman says:

    Dear Sir,

    Just leaving a thank you and some information.
    While MSNBC has missed this story, ZeroHedge news reports 65 large private jets taken to Global warming Conference.
    “Bezos Leads Parade Of 400 Private Jets To COP26 With $65M Gulfstream As Greta Accuses Leaders Of Betrayal” URL:
    https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/jeff-bezos-leads-parade-private-jets-cop26-his-65m-gulfstream
    Prince Charles “claims a “vast military-style campaign” is required to marshal a “fundamental economic transition.”
    Source in his own words: https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1455164263836815369
    .
    Just know Bank of America forecasts oil at $120
    Source: https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/bank-america-sees-oil-hitting-120-june-could-rise-much-higher-after
    Why? Well companies are drilling fewer exploratory oil wells since oil demand will drop because “oil is going away; cars will be electric. Hertz bought 10k Tesla’s”

    Please keep up the good work as solar cycle #25, by my charting, is not living up solar cycle #24.

    Kindly
    Techno
    “I think we have seen this before”

  30. Torbjrn Pettersson says:

    because the area of the lit hemisphere is only half that of the sphere.

    This is wrong, at least 50,3 % of the sphere is lit at every moment, due to atmospheric refraction

  31. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The NAO is similarly falling and the forecast indicates no major change. This means precipitation and gradual cooling in Western and Central Europe. Demand for gas and coal will increase even more. High gas and coal prices will continue.
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/nao.sprd2.gif

  32. Torbjrn Pettersson says:

    Good nitpick, Torbjrn. You can make the absolutely tiny adjustment to the calculations if you like

    It will change the TSI with 4W/m2 from 1361 W/m2 to 1365 W/m2

    • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

      OK, thanks. Still works out as approx. 480 W/m^2 absorbed, 240 W/m^2 emitted, of course…

  33. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The Glasgow Summit is already working in Europe. It will be cooler.
    http://tropic.ssec.wisc.edu/real-time/mtpw2/webAnims/tpw_nrl_colors/europe/mimictpw_europe_latest.gif

  34. Willard says:

    Meanwhile in Bristol, Virginia:

    There has been significant reporting in recent weeks about Manchins financial ties to the coal industry. See Joe Manchin’s Dirty Energy by Daniel Boguslaw writing for The Intercept.

    […]

    Documented has now learned that Manchin was listed as a keynote speaker at a September 2021 secret invite-only meeting with the CEOs of numerous coal companies, including Joe Craft of Alliance Resource Partners.

    […]

    Documented has obtained materials from an annual elite-level coal industry event, called the Coal and Investment Leadership Forum, which took place from September 19-21, 2021. The annual event is billed as “a private, invitation-only conference focusing on the challenges and opportunities facing coal and energy around the globe today.”

    The forum takes place annually in Bristol, Virginia, at an exclusive golf resort owned by Jim McGlothlin of United Coal Company. The Olde Farm also holds an annual golf tournament, “featuring three days of Ryder Cup-style competition with a Civil War theme.” “It has become our most cherished tradition,” McGlothlin told Links Magazine.

    https://documented.net/reporting/revealed-the-recent-joe-manchin-meeting-with-coal-barons-their-investors-and-climate-deniers-at-a-luxury-golfing-resort

    • stephen p anderson says:

      Willard,

      Wow! You’re an amazing detective. Can you get on Pelosi’s trail? I’m sure she has gobs of skeletons in her closet. Hey, AOC and the other “Squad” members. Get’r done!

    • Munchkin has “ties” to the coal industry
      (like that is bad when representing West Virginia?)
      and also gets a big government paycheck.
      So we don’t have to listen to anything he says?

    • Ball4 says:

      Christos, 255K is a temperature; the article you link is about energy. For planetary equilibrium temperature, see the THAT link under “See also”.

      In addition, you will want to read through and study ref. 32 to learn about CERES data and Earth’s measured radiation budget: “The top-of-atmosphere (TOA) Earth radiation budget (ERB) represents a balance between incoming solar radiation reaching the TOA and outgoing reflected solar and thermal radiant energy emitted by the earth-atmosphere system.”

      • Yes, you are right.
        I found it says Earth has equilibrium temperature 255K.

        I think, correct me if I am wrong, it is the theoretically calculated Earth’s, in the absence of atmosphere, if assuming Earth was a uniform surface temperature blackbody…

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

        • Ball4 says:

          There are plenty of ref. s given to read through to answer your question(s). Search the article for “irrelevant”; assumptions you note are not important.

        • Swenson says:

          Christos,

          And, of course, assuming that the Earth had no internal heat, and was initially below 255 K.

          Which of course is nonsense.

          Additionally, talk of a “radiation budget” is nonsensical. During the night, all of the day’s heat radiates to space, plus a little of the Earth’s primordial heat. (Apologies to Baron Fourier for paraphrasing his French into English.)

          People like Ball4 and his whacky climate cranks just refuse to believe that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature from the molten state.

          • Swenson

            “Earth has cooled to its present temperature from the molten state.”

            Agreed 100%… I think, you also say, Earth has never stopped cooling – Earth slowly continues getting rid of its inner heat.
            Agreed 100%.

            https://www.cristos-vournas.com

          • Willard says:

            > Earth has never stopped cooling

            Are you sure about that:

            https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/greece/athens/climate

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Earth has never stopped cooling”

            It is important to stipulate whether we are talking about:
            A) the entire 6E24 kg bulk of the earth
            B) the thin surface layer where life exists

            Certainly the bulk has cooled and continues to cool.
            Certainly the surface layer has both warmed and cooled many times. Every time the earth entered an interglacial period, the temperature rose.

            (A) has nothing to do with climate. [Well almost nothing. There is a ~ 0.1 W/m^2 heat flow up from the interior that needs to be added in with the other heat flows. But since the sun supplies ~ 240 W/m^2, the extra 0.04% from the interior is not particularly important.]
            (B) has everything to do with climate, and with the energy balances related to sun, radiation, evaporation, etc. Claiming “the earth has never stopped cooling” in a discussion of *climate* is misleading.

          • Swenson says:

            Tim,

            At least you agree that “the Earth” is cooling. Good. The Sun’s continuous ouput for four and a half billion years or so has been unable to prevent it, so it is obviously relatively unimportant.

            As to the “surface layer”, once again, people tend to refer to the “surface layer” of the entire Earth, which is just more climate crank misdirection. The surface itself varies between around -90 C, and a few thousand C (magma exposed at the surface). You might say this is irrelevant, but it wasn’t to the people of Pompeii, for example.

            Averages in this context are just stupid.

            Moving on to climate, clinate is the statistics of past weather. Define weather as you wish, but “energy balance” is just a distraction, a meaningless piece of jargon promulgated by those who do not understand what they are talking about. Just like “the Grenhouse Effect”.

            If you want to discuss climate, fine. Just don’t make ridiculous claims that imply the Earth’s surface is getting hotter. It isn’t.

            Some millions of years ago, the Antractic continent supported plentiful flora and fauna – according to fossil records. In many places, sea levels were not very different to now, according to fossil records. Now, there are several kilometres of ice overlaying the surface in places. Now just tell me why this occurred.

            Lack of GHGs, perhaps? The hottest places on Earth suffer from a distinct shortage of that most important GHG – H2O! As does Antarctica, being the driest continent on Earth. Hmmm.

            Best try something else. When you have worked it out, give me shout. If I can’t find any contradictions, and it doesn’t agree with my hypothesis, I’ll change my view. How hard can it be?

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “At least you agree that “the Earth” is cooling. ”
            Everyone agrees with that. I am not sure why you think this is interesting or important when we are discussing climate.

            “The Sun’s continuous output for four and a half billion years or so has been unable to prevent it, so it is obviously relatively unimportant.”
            Say what??

            Without the sunlight, the planet would have cooled MUCH faster. A 4.5 billion year long night would leave the surface FRIGID! The coldest place on the moon is ~ 26K where the sun never shines … presumably earth’s whole surface would be similar temperature. That seems pretty important to me!

            “If you want to discuss climate, fine. Just don’t make ridiculous claims that imply the Earth’s surface is getting hotter. ”
            No … If *you want to discuss the earth’s core, fine. Just don’t make ridiculous claims that the surface has been getting cooler for 4.5 billion years. The average surface temperature has risen on the order of 10 K in the past 20,000 years! The data at the top of this very page shows the surface has gotten ~ 0.6K warmer over the past 40 years.

            *That* is “climate” — climate is not the gradual cooling of earth’s core and mantle that you keep bringing up! Best try something else. When you are ready to move on from the bulk cooling of the core and mantle, you can let us all know. Then we can discuss climate.

        • stephen p anderson says:

          Christos,

          You will find that B4 is the “master” at citing stuff that isn’t there.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            B4 lives in a surreal world.

            B4, we have that mean satellite temperature is approximately 288K, plus or minus a K or two. That’s all we have. Everything else is a figment of your imagination. I think Vournas’ observations of the 14 planets and moons are better than your imagination.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Christos,

            NASA is a bureaucratic entity with a bunch of scientists who work there. Their exploration of space has substantially stalled. Their funding comes from Congress. As long as they tow the “Deep State” line, the media will leave them alone and they will get funding from Congress. If someone like Trump comes along and questions NASA’s relevance, the leftist media chorus browbeats them to a pulp. So, you won’t see NASA break rank and actually become a science entity.

          • Willard says:

            > That’s all we have.

            Sure, Troglodyte:

            Analysis of CERES data by its principal investigators showed a linearly increasing trend in EEI, from +0.42 W m−2 (+/-0.48 W m−2) in 2005 to +1.12 W m−2 (+/-0.48 W m−2) in 2019.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#Earth's_energy_imbalance

            Ask Christos what EEI stands for.

          • Stephen

            “we have that mean satellite temperature is approximately 288K, plus or minus a K or two. Thats all we have.

            Stephen, what you say is essential, “we have that mean satellite temperature is approximately 288K,”

            Earth’s Tmean = 288K is satellite measured temperature! A 100% agreed!

            https://www.cristos-vournas.com

          • Nate says:

            So you guys, Christos and Stephen, believe satellite measured temperatures, which are calculsted using SB law, from measured outgoing IR radiation.

            But you dont believe NET outgoing radiation, OLR, measured by sattelite is correct, since it disagrees by a lot with your theory!

            Nor do you believe OLR calculated by SB law and Earth temps is correct, since it disagrees with your theory!

            Guys, how does that make ANY sense to you?

            And why should we believe you when you tell us that sattelite observations must be right when they agree with your theory, but must be wrong when they dont!

          • Nate, thank you for your note.

            It looks like not making sense, when saying Earth’s Tmean = 288K is satellite measured…
            How do you think it is measured in the first place then?
            I always say NASA solar system planets temperatures satellite measurements are very much precise.
            Actually none of my discoveries could be accomplished without NASA solar system planets temperatures measurements!

            Everything I have found based on NASA measurements. The method I use is “Planet Temperatures Comparison Method”.
            What I do is to compare planetary features and planetary surface temperatures…

            https://www.cristos-vournas.com

          • Willard says:

            Christos does not always cite stuff, but when he does he invariably cite stuff that contradicts what he calls a theory:

            When the imbalance in global energy fluxes shifts by a sufficiently large amount, it is directly measurable by orbiting satellite-based radiometric instruments.

            […]

            Several satellites directly measure the energy absorbed and radiated by Earth, and thus by inference the energy imbalance.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#Earth's_energy_imbalance

            Christos would profit from reading his own citations.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Satellites can measure lots of different things.

            That is how Dr Roy can measure different temperatures at different layers. The intensity of radiation at different wavelengths corresponds to temperatures at different altitudes. If you look in the ‘atmospheric window” you get surface temperature. If you look in the 15 um band, you get temperatures near the tropopause.

            If you are as clever as Dr Roy, you can tease out temperatures at many different levels.

            If you properly integrate, you can get the ‘effective temperature’.

          • Willard
            “Several satellites directly measure the energy absorbed and radiated by Earth, and thus by inference the energy imbalance.”

            How?
            “Several satellites directly measure the energy absorbed…”

            How satellites measure the energy absorbed?

            https://www.cristos-vournas.com

          • Nate says:

            “It looks like not making sense, when saying Earth’s Tmean = 288K is satellite measured…”

            No.

            The Net OLR is MEASURED by CERES satellite and others. Its ~ 240 W/m^2.

            Your theory does not agree with this observable. Not even close.

            Is this observation wrong? Why?

            If not, then your theory is wrong!

            If we ignore the GHE, as you want, and calculate OLR with Earths actual T distribution and SB law, it disagrees from your theory. Not even close.

            How does any of this makes sense?

          • Nate, thank you for your note.

            “If we ignore the GHE, as you want, and calculate OLR with Earths actual T distribution and SB law, it disagrees from your theory. Not even close.”

            What I have discovered is the ROTATING PLANET SPHERICAL SURFACE SOLAR IRRADIATION ABSORBING-EMITTING UNIVERSAL LAW
            Jemit = 4πr²σΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
            Ιτ calculates the TOTAL OLR with Earths actual T distribution and SB law…

            Planet Energy Budget:
            Jabs = Jemit
            πr²Φ*S*(1-a) = 4πr²σTmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)

            Solving for Tmean we obtain the PLANET MEAN SURFACE TEMPERATURE EQUATION:
            Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴ (K)

            The “ABSORBING-EMITTING”, I realize now, is misleading… I should change it in my website to “INTERACTING-EMITTING”.
            Thus the
            β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant…
            since now will be more correctly called as:

            β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Interacting-Emitting Universal Law constant.

            I have work to do now, correcting the term in all my website pages!
            Thank you Nate for helping me to realize that.

            https://www.cristos-vournas.com

          • Nate says:

            So you are changing the name. Is this going to change the result? Is this going to change the prediction for OLR? To make it agree with observations?

          • Nate,
            I am correcting the name, because by the surface “absorbing” the solar energy is the commonly used term, but in the New theory it is very misleading, since my observations confirm surface, when interacting with solar flux, transforms SW incident EM energy into a IR outgoing EM energy, without absorbing SW EM energy first.

            This process is so fast, there is almost no absorp-tion in the inner layers occurs.

            https://www.cristos-vournas.com

          • Nate says:

            Ok. But you didnt answer ny question.

  35. Dr. Mark says:

    Yet another big jump in Dr. Roy’s data.

    Could it possibly be yet another sign that climate change is real and it’s being driven by human activity?

    https://tinyurl.com/dvfx22wd

    • Clint R says:

      No.

      We know from basic science that CO2 cannot raise Earth temperatures higher.

      • Norman says:

        Clint R

        What basic science is that? You have NEVER offered any science. You blather on with your ignorant opinions that only DREMT seems to agree with. A person who has studied actual physics knows you are wrong on nearly all topics related to REAL science. People explain real science to you and you are too stupid to understand what they are telling you.

        I link you often to real physics pages and you are so stupid, you don’t understand the content so to cover you make stupid claims that I do not understand the link.

        How dumb can you get. Unknown, seems limitless stupidity from you.

        Keep going with stupid comments based upon your ignorant opinions. Don’t try to learn the real science as you are not smart enough to grasp the content.

        Keep boiling water with ice cubes, that is the level of your intellect.

        • Swenson says:

          N,

          Go on, then.

          Provide some “real physics pages” that claim that the Earth didn’t cool to its present temperature from the molten state.

          You can’t, can you?

          That’s because you are just a delusional climate crank! Good luck convincing anyone otherwise.

          • Ken says:

            Here are ice core proxies. They show long periods when earth was much colder than now.

            http://euanmearns.com/the-vostok-ice-core-temperature-co2-and-ch4/

            So earth didn’t cool down to present temperatures from the molten state; it has warmed up for the current interglacial.

            So stop promulgating your hypothesis; its false.

          • Clint R says:

            Ken says (October 31, 2021 at 2:59 PM)

            Kepler showed that Newton was wrong.

            Kepler died before Newton was born.

            So stop perverting reality to fit your false beliefs.

          • Swenson says:

            Ken,

            No they don’t.

            As a matter of fact, it is impossible to escape the fact that if the Earth did not cool from the molten state then ice could not exist! But it does, so it did.

            Your problem is that you cannot find any possible mechanism whereby the Earth’s surface cooled (overall) to below its present temperature, and then heated up!

            The delusional Carl Sagan just stated as fact that the molten Earth somehow turned into a snowball for some unknown reason, and then heated up, with all the ice melting – due to CO2 (or magic).

            Nobody bothered to point out to Carl that a big blob of hot rock, sitting in the Sun, does not magically freeze itself. Maybe you can dream something up, but I doubt it.

            If you accept the fact that the Earth initially had a molten surface, then what I am stating is simply observed fact – the surface is no longer molten – it has cooled. No hypothesis. Your ice cores do not apply to the rest of the globe, otherwise there would be ice everywhere – and there isn’t. You cannot even say where the land beneath the present ice used to be. Continents drift, you know. And, of course, the oldest ice is only a couple of million years old, showing that conditions were obviously warmer then, before that ice formed.

            OK, your turn. Trot out your best global cooling/heating/cooling/heating . . . hypothesis. But first, put a pan of boiling water in the sun, and watch it cool. Then try and figure out why it is not getting hotter absorbing all those energetic photons from the sun. More than 50% of the Sun’s ouput is IR, you know.

            Go ahead – shoot me down in flames with facts. How hard can it be?

          • Ken says:

            I grew up north of Toronto near Oak Ridges. Oak Ridges is a moraine feature that remains from the last age.

            My understanding is ice ages are a result of Milankovitch cycles where the orbital tilt and precession change the point in earth orbit around the sun where currently we get the maximum heating at the south pole. The interglacial periods last about 10 000 years. If the cycle continues we have less than a 1000 years to go before things get really cold again.

            The geological studies indicate its heat from the sun penetrating downward into the earth; its not heat coming to the surface from the earth’s core. There is not much convection from earth molten core to earth surface.

            None of these items (except the moraine) are proven but they are the currently best accepted hypotheses.

            Your claim that the earth surface is still cooling since the collision between earth and moon caused a major heating event is not supported by any observations.

          • Swenson says:

            Ken,

            No, not at all.

            The influence of the Sun is completely undetectable at at depths of more than a few metres. As a matter of observed fact, the deeper you penetrate into the crust, the hotter it gets, because you are getting closer to the molten core of the Earth. Basic physics.

            The Sun does not even penetrate far into water, and less dense water floats, leading to bodies of water getting colder with depth, down to the temperature of maximum density.

            Consider the situation of the ocean at around 10 km depth. The water is around 1 C to 4 C, but at 10 km into the surrounding rocky crust, the temperature will be around 250 C to 300 C.

            No wonder oceans don’t freeze right through. Some climate crackpots believe that the oceans are heated from above, but they are just stupid.

            As to claims, I just point out that the Earth’s surface has cooled from the molten state. Look between your feet, and tell me I!m wrong. In other words, nothing at all has managed to prevent the Earth from cooling over the last four and a half billion years or so.

            So if some dimwits at NASA or elsewhere are saying that the Earth has cooled to below its present temperature, and then heated up by 33 K or so, they are quite mad, Just delusional fantasists.

            By the way, glaciation does not occur globally. The atmosphere acts chaotically, a fact strenuously denied by climate nutters, most o& whom positively refuse to believe that the future state of a chaotic system can be predicted. If it can, it is not chaotic!

            You still haven’t managed to factually contradict anything I have written, and I have written a lot. Again, go your hardest. You’ll get nowhere, I’m right, unless you can produce facts to show otherwise. And of course, you can’t!

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Your problem is that you cannot find any possible mechanism whereby the Earth’s surface cooled (overall) to below its present temperature, and then heated up!”

            Your problem is that Roy’s data at the top of the page shows that
            “the Earth’s surface cooled (overall) to below its present temperature, and then heated up!” By about 0.6 K. Indeed numerous sources and methods show that the surface has warmed and cooled numerous times, on time-scales ranging from days to 100’s of millions of years.

            That is the data. Data trumps theory. If your theoretical understanding is at odds with data, it is your theoretical understanding that must be improved until you can find the mechanisms (and many exist).

            Or put another way, the fact that *you* cannot find a mechanism does not mean no mechanism exists.

          • Swenson says:

            Tim,

            Don’t be stupid.

            Remote sensing does not cover the whole Earth, let alone read the temperature of the surface. You do realise that most of the Earth’s surface is covered by water of one sort or another, don’t you?

            As well as vegetation, roads, buildings, etc., etc..

            Maybe you are just gullible and easily led, rather than stupid.

            Maybe you could get back on track, and propose a testable mechanism which could, say, produce a totally icebound Earth (Carl Sagan’s “snowball Earth”), thaw it, freeze it again . . .

            Fantasy and unsupported assertion are not testable hypotheses.

            Off you go now, give it a go.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Remote sensing does not cover the whole Earth”
            The satellites used for this data cover about 98% of the earth. That’s close enough for me. The trends near the poles are not going to change the overall results significantly.

            “You do realise that most of the Earths surface is covered by water of one sort or another, dont you?”
            You do realize satellites fly over oceans, don’t you? And that the satellites can measure temperatures both over land and over water?

            “Maybe you could get back on track, and propose a testable mechanism which could, say, produce a totally icebound Earth”
            This is known as “moving the goal posts.

            You started with “Your problem is that you cannot find any possible mechanism whereby the Earths surface cooled (overall) to below its present temperature, and then heated up!” When it became obvious that the earth has indeed warmed and cooled many times (by 1/10s of a degree in the past decades; by whole degrees over the past 60,000 years) you now switch to the most extreme hypnotized changes as your target.

        • Clint R says:

          Norman is still in meltdown mode — all insults, false accusations, opinions, and things he can’t support. It may have been the ball-on-a-string that did it?

          That’s why this is so much fun. Maybe he will return to entertain us again.

          [To refrain from commenting too much, I no longer respond to immature, inaccurate, incompetent trolls. Responsible comments/questions are always welcome.]

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            You are very stupid and not entertaining. You think you are a funny person but if you reread your comments, you will see the obvious. You are just a stupid person pretending to be what you are not.

            Neither an intellect nor a comedian. Just a very sad and stupid bored person. Maybe someday you will grow up and get a mind but I think your are in the basement with dumb Swenson. Not sure which of the two of your are dumber. I let that for others on this blog to determine.

      • Dr. Mark says:

        Well you clearly do not understand the mechanisms that drive the atmospheric greenhouse effect. They include the results from quantum mechanics which show that the naturally occurring greenhouse gases water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane are highly effective at scattering infra-red radiation (as I noted in my talk). The water vapor content of the atmosphere varies widely by location and altitude from as much as 5% to as little as 10 parts per million in the upper atmosphere. But almost all the water vapor is confined to the lower atmosphere while CO2 and methane are thoroughly mixed throughout the atmosphere. Because of this the infrared radiation from the surface of the earth mostly does not escape. Rather it warms the lower atmosphere. That heat does not disappear it moves upward by convection. The heat content eventually is radiated from the topmost part of the atmosphere because there is no more CO2 and methane to scatter the IR photons.

        If you add more CO2 and methane to the atmosphere, more scattering occurs trapping more heat, and in order to comply with the laws of thermodynamics the surface heats up a little so that the outward energy flux at the top of the atmosphere can continue to balance the incoming flux.

        Yes, the discussion in my presentation in https://tinyurl.com/dvfx22wd was simplified for an audience of non-scientists, but what I was said is correct. When you add more greenhouse gas to the atmosphere, the average surface temperature has to increase.

        I fear you would not have done well in my physics classes.

        • Clint R says:

          Mark, you appear to be able to regurgitate the cult dogma, but you do not recognize the violations of the laws of physics.

          CO2 absorbs IR. There’s no question about that. But, that absorbed energy is then emitted. And the emitted energy is so low it has no effect on a surface with an average temperature of 288K. That’s like trying to warm the surface with ice cubes!

          I hope you didn’t indoctrinate your students with cult nonsense.

        • Bindidon says:

          Dr. Mark

          You have no chance in any trial to convince denialists.

          They all do not (want to) understand that the tiny IR reemitted downwards to the surface by H2O, CO2 and a few other trace cases is by no means the problem, let alone that the problem is that with these trace gases, an increasing amount of IR no longer is directly reemitted to space.

          One of them is even convinced that the solar energy absorbed by Earth is caught by conduction and convection, and 100 % dissipates [sic] before reaching outer space, making radiative balance discussions superfluous!

          • Clint R says:

            Braindead-idon, as more trace cases [sic] are added to the atmosphere, there are more emitters. That means more emission to space.

          • Ball4 says:

            … and more to the surface.

          • Bindidon says:

            ” Braindead-idon, as more trace cases [sic] are added to the atmosphere, there are more emitters. That means more emission to space. ”

            Wonderful statement.

            No, Clint R.

            The more trace gases are added to the atmosphere, the more photons are emitted back to surface instead of reaching outer space. That means less emission to space.

            You play stubborn, Clint R?
            Then I play stubborn and a half.

          • Clint R says:

            Braindead-idon, I understand you know NOTHING about radiative physics, but let’s try simple logic. If M molecules are emitting P photons to space, then 2M molecules would be emitting 2P photons to space.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “If M molecules are emitting P photons to space, then 2M molecules would be emitting 2P photons to space.”

            That might seem logical to some, but it is quite wrong in this case. Let’s consider your favorite ice example. Suppose the M molecules on the surface of a 1m^2 sheet of ice are emitting 300 W worth of photons. Now suppose I add another M molecules on top of the original molecules. The sheet will now emit …. still 300 W/m^2.

            The ice emits no more photons and no more energy by adding more molecules.

            The same applies for CO2 at the top of the atmosphere.

          • Swenson says:

            Tim,

            You are at it again.

            Let’s not confuse a gas with a solid, eh.

            Even so, 2 square meters of ice emits twice the radiation of 1 square meter of ice exposed to space, wouldn’t you say? No, I dare say you wouldn’t.

            You will go to any lengths to avoid accepting reality, won’t you.

            At least you accept that the Earth has cooled. That’s a start. Accept that the future state of the atmosphere cannot be predicted, and you will get a bit further. If you don’t want to accept the reality of chaos, try quantum physics – the uncertainty priciple seems to be fact, whether Einstein rejected it or not.

            Either way, the same ultimate result obtains. No GHE.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            A quick chemistry lesson for Swenson.

            We can use the Ideal Gas Law n = PV/RT to find that in 1 m^3 of gas at the tropopause, there are about 5 l of gas. Of that, 400 ppm are CO2, or about 0.002 l, which is a little over 10^21 molecules. The cross-sectional area of a CO2 molecule is tough to calculate, since it is not round and has fuzzes edges, but we can use 0.1 nm as a rough estimate of the radius of an atom or molecule, giving a rough estimate of area as pi r^2 = 3 x 10^(-20).

            This gives a total cross-sectional area of about (1E21 molecules)*(3E-20 m^2/molecule) = 30 m^2! There are enough CO2 molecules that you could stack them about 30 deep on a 1m^2 sheet. Comparable to the surface layer of a solid.

            Or if you prefer — experimentally, it is well know that even a few meters of CO2 gas will absorb 99.9% the 15um photons passing through. Conversely, this also means even a few m of CO2 are enough to EMIT 99.9% of the possible photons. Doubling the amount of CO2 in this case would increase the emission less than 0.1%.

            There are plenty of CO2 molecules around already. Doubling them will NOT double the absorp.tion or the emission!

          • Clint R says:

            Sorry Folkerts, but “If M molecules are emitting P photons to space, then 2M molecules would be emitting 2P photons to space.”

            That’s reality.

            You can pervert reality as much as you like, but that just makes you an idiot.

            Now, get back to warming your coffee with ice cubes. If it’s not warm enough, just add more ice. That’s the perverted world you live in….

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “If M molecules are emitting P photons to space, then 2M molecules would be emitting 2P photons to space.”

            That is simply not true. In fact, this is the OPPOSITE of the ‘standard’ anti-GHE argument, which argues “there is already so much CO2 that the 15 um band is ‘saturated’ and adding more CO2 will have no effect.”

            This ‘saturation’ argument is actually MUCH CLOSER to correct than your argument.

            If the amount of CO2 is doubled, then the radiation from CO2 to space ….
            a) does not change –> close to correct.
            b) increases a few % –> correct
            c) doubles –> not even close.

          • Clint R says:

            Folkerts, “If M molecules are emitting P photons to space, then 2M molecules would be emitting 2P photons to space.”

            That’s reality.

            Thanks for providing more evidence of what a braindead cult idiot you are. You live to pervert physics and to argue semantics. All in an effort to protect your cult. A cult that has NO clue about the relevant physics.

            Figured out what “rotating” means yet?

            Tell us again how you can boil water with ice cubes.

            You love to nitpick, so where’s your 1000-word rambling comment explaining how “Dr.” Mark’s energy in a 15μ photon is off by a factor of 1000? Can’t nitpick your cult members; huh?

            Braindead cult idiots like you are why this is so much fun.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Radiation is a *surface* effect, not a *bulk* effect. Once a surface is completely ‘covered’, you can’t get any more radiation.

            For example, if I put a IR heating panel that is 200C on a wall, it will provide some radiation into my room. If I add a second panel, I get twice as much radiation. But once the wall is full, adding more panels to the wall doesn’t help. Adding another 200 C panel *blocks* the radiation from behind and *replaces* it with different radiation.

            Likewise, once you have an object completely surrounded by ice, adding more ice doesn’t matter. You can’t add more radiation and can’t use the ice (alone) to warm anything above the temperature of the ice.

            For solid or liquid radiators, that surface is thin and well-defined a few nm thick perhaps. For a gas, the ‘surface’ is not as well defined, and might extend a few cm (or many m) back. But once you have enough (like in the atmosphere at 15 um due to CO2), adding more CO2 will not matter. In fact, you could remove all the CO2 up to ~ 10 km, and the tiny amount of CO2 above 10 km would still (very nearly) radiate the same amount to space.

            Once ‘saturation’ is reached, adding molecules more won’t generate any more radiation (it will just block OTHER radiation from behind and REPLACE it with its own radiation).

        • Clint R says:

          None of the braindead cult idiots understand any of the relevant physics, but Willard, Bin, and Ball4 have all jumped in to “help” Mark!

          What a hoot!

          Mark claims to have taught physics. He even mentioned “quantum mechanics”. So if he’s legit, let’s see if he can teach the cult idiots that if X number of 15μ photons cannot warm a surface, then 2X number of 15μ can’t either.

          If he understands the physics, I predict he can’t teach them anything. They’re braindead.

          • Craig T says:

            “… if X number of 15µ photons cannot warm a surface, then 2X number of 15µ cant either.”

            If x number of 15µ photons lost to space can cool a surface, then 1/2X number of 15µ reduces the cooling.

          • Clint R says:

            Very good, Craig T.

            Less CO2 = less cooling.
            More CO2 = more cooling.

            Of course the result would be so slight it would likely be swamped by natural variation. But long term, and enough ΔCO2, it would be detectable.

          • Dr. Mark says:

            A 15 micron photon has an energy of about 1.3 x 10^-23 Joules. If that photon is absorbed by a surface the electromagnetic energy is converted into thermal energy and the temperature of the surface will rise, albeit, by a very tiny amount. However, if the surface absorbs a large number of these photons its temperature will rise by a measurable amount.

            You can do a simple experiment to understand this. Take an old-fashioned vacuum tube. Put a finger on the surface of the vacuum tube. Run a large enough current through the filament of the tube so that it just begins to glow red. You will be able to feel the temperature of the glass envelope increase. Since there is no air in the tube, it is only the photons emitted by the filament that warm the envelope.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Notice how Ball4 and Craig T’s version of the GHE is completely different.

            Clint R said “as more trace [gases] are added to the atmosphere, there are more emitters. That means more emission to space.”

            and Ball4 added

            “…and more to the surface”.

            Thus agreeing with Clint R that there would be more emission to space, but adding that there would also be more emitted towards the surface, as if to say that the extra emission to the surface directly warms the surface.

            Whereas Craig T comes along to imply that adding more trace gases reduces the amount emitted to space and thus “reduces cooling” of the surface.

            So, to summarize:

            Ball4: More emission to space with added GHGs.
            Craig T: Less emission to space with added GHGs.
            Ball4: More emission to surface directly warms surface.
            Craig T: Less emission to space reduces cooling of the surface.

            The two will never argue about their differences. What will happen is, either a third person will come along trying to claim that the two have no differences, or one of the two will go back on some element of what they’ve said. Without ever admitting they were wrong, of course.

          • Clint R says:

            Mark, there a lot of confusion there, so let’s take it one sentence at a time.

            “A 15 micron photon has an energy of about 1.3 x 10^-23 Joules.”

            You’re off by a factor of 1000. If you can find and admit your mistake, we can go on to your next sentence.

            Again, just one sentence at a time. Otherwise people may think you’re purposely trying to confuse things.

          • Swenson says:

            Dr Mark,

            As you say, “If that photon is absorbed by a surface . . . “, and therein lies the rub.

            Try and get liquid water to absorb photons emitted by ice – in other words heat the water using the photons emitted by the ice.

            Now try and explain why the photons emitted by the ice are not “absorbed” by the water. All too difficult?

            In other words, either you don’t know what you are talking about, or you are trying to intentionally mislead people.

            For anyone who does not have a vacuum tube, simply step into the sunshine on a warm summer’s day. The radiation making you feel,warm came through many millions of kilometers of pretty much nothing at all – outer space.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Dr. Mark,

            You might try getting a PhD in physics instead of whatever. CO2 doesn’t scatter IR. CO2 absorbs and emits IR. At what temperature does 15micron CO2 emit?

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Also, with Greenhouse gases. They are less than 0.1% of the atmospheric composition. If water vapor is 4% somewhere, which I highly doubt. It is zero percent in other places. Overall it is less than 0.1%. Not enough to heat the atmosphere.

          • Clint R says:

            Mark, I’m waiting for you to find your mistake before continuing. I don’t want to go too fast.

            Do you need help finding the energy of a 15μ photon?

          • Willard says:

            Notice how Pup & Kiddo fail to get Mark’s tube experiment.

            Instead they’re trolling.

          • Clint R says:

            Child Willard, I’m taking Mark’s remarks in order.

            He may be working hard to find his first mistake I identified. I’ll get to them all.

            Be patient. Don’t pee your pants.

            [In order to keep my number of comments down, I will not respond to immature, inaccurate, incompetent trolls like Willard, any further.]

          • Craig T says:

            stephen p anderson says:
            “CO2 doesn’t scatter IR. CO2 absorbs and emits IR. At what temperature does 15micron CO2 emit?”

            At whatever temperature it absorbed a 15 micron photon. This isn’t black body radiation so the temperature is irrelevant. When a CO2 molecule absorbs a photon then emits it, the photon can go in any direction. So yes, it scatters IR.

          • bobdroege says:

            Swenson,

            As usual you don’t know what you are talking about

            “As you say, If that photon is absorbed by a surface . . . , and therein lies the rub.

            Try and get liquid water to absorb photons emitted by ice in other words heat the water using the photons emitted by the ice.

            Now try and explain why the photons emitted by the ice are not absorbed by the water. All too difficult?”

            What if the ice and water are at the same temperature?

            The water would of course absorb the photons emitted by the ice.

            Even if they are at different temperatures, the warmer water would still absorb the photons from the ice, but no heat transfer, because the ice is absorbing more photons from the water than the water is absorbing from the ice.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Craig T,

            That’s not scattering. Take a few classes in spectroscopy.

          • Craig T says:

            Clint R says:
            “…if X number of 15µ photons cannot warm a surface, then 2X number of 15µ can’t either.”

            Swenson says:
            “Try and get liquid water to absorb photons emitted by ice – in other words heat the water using the photons emitted by the ice.”

            The blackbody radiation of ice at -0.15C gives off light with a wavelength of 10.6µm. CO2 lasers put out enough photons at 10.6µm to cut through steel.

            Ice doesn’t warm water because it doesn’t emit enough watts to do the job. It has nothing to do with the wavelength emitted.

          • Clint R says:

            bob, Swenson clearly stated the situation: “…in other words heat the water using the photons emitted by the ice.”

            You’re just trying to pervert his meaning, like the braindead cult idiot you are.

            And Craig T, you were doing okay until you tried to use CO2 lasers to pervert reality. Lasers have NOTHING to do with nature. Why make yourself look like an idiot?

          • Swenson says:

            Craig T,

            You wrote –

            “Ice doesn’t warm water because it doesn’t emit enough watts to do the job. It has nothing to do with the wavelength emitted.”

            This is the usual peabrain argument of people who don’t understand basic physics.

            Ice can emit more than 300 W/m2, and of course this light can be concentrated by means of devices such as lenses, mirrors etc. So, one square meter of ice surface. 300 W. Try and warm the amount of liquid water that fits on the head of a pin.

            You really have no clue at all, have you? Even you can take less than 300 W/m2 of sunlight and boil a small amount of water, burn the legs off ants, or melt lead!

            You are stupid, ignorant, or both

            Get a clue, and come back, dimwit – with an apology, if you are man enough.

          • Swenson says:

            b,

            You get more stupid by the day.

            You wrote –

            “What if the ice and water are at the same temperature?” What if your brains were dynamite. Would you have enough to blow your nose?

            Listen, donkey brain, even if you had ice and water at the same temperature (possible but difficult), photons emitted by the ice coukd not increase the temperature of the water, because they are the same temperature! Give it a try. Tell me how much hotter you made water by adding ice, nitwit!

            How stupid are you pretending to be? Or are you not pretending?

            Go and play silly semantic games with Witless Wee Willy Willard. See if you can both lose simultaneously. I wouldn’t be surprised.

          • Craig T says:

            Clint R says:
            ‘…if X number of 15µ photons cannot warm a surface, then 2X number of 15µ can’t either.”

            Then says “And Craig T, you were doing okay until you tried to use CO2 lasers to pervert reality.”

            Last time I checked lasers are part of reality. If an object absorbs a photon the energy carried by that photon enters the object. The fact that the photon came from a laser or ice cube doesn’t matter.

            Ice does emit 300 watts due to thermal radiation. But unless it absorbs the same amount of energy the temperature of the ice goes down. Warming something with the radiant energy of ice would require some version of Maxwell’s demon. (I guess you could warm dry ice with the thermal radiation of ice at -1C)

            The Earth cools at night by giving off more infrared radiation than it absorbs. The more radiation absorbed and reemitted by the atmosphere the less the Earth cools.

          • Clint R says:

            Crain, here’s the full quote:

            “And Craig T, you were doing okay until you tried to use CO2 lasers to pervert reality. Lasers have NOTHING to do with nature. Why make yourself look like an idiot?”

            One might wonder why you neglected to include the last two sentences….

          • Craig T says:

            Clint R says: “One might wonder why you neglected to include the last two sentences.”

            Mainly for brevity. Nothing you wrote changes the fact that anything absorbing photons increases in energy. The source does not matter, only the number of photons and the energy per photon. The steel melted by a CO2 laser doesn’t care where those 10.6µm photons came from.

            But this isn’t really about heating anything. The issue is that keeping infrared photons from leaving the Earth slows the cooling at night.

          • Clint R says:

            “Brevity”, bullshit!

            You got caught taking my words out of context and twisting them. You started out here this time doing okay, but you’re gradually devolving back into an idiot. When you have to use a CO2 laser, that indicates you can’t provide the correct physics.

            I’ve learned not to waste time with idiots.

          • bobdroege says:

            Swenson,

            Do you need a back brace after moving them goal posts.

            I was responding to you claiming water wouldn’t absorb photons from ice, not that those photons would increase the temperature of the ice, dumbass.

            These two things don’t mean the same thing

            “Try and get liquid water to absorb photons emitted by ice”

            and

            “in other words heat the water using the photons emitted by the ice.”

            Even thought you think they do by using the term “in other words”

            are you really that stupid.

            Rhetorical question, don’t answer it.

            How hard is this

            “Listen, donkey brain, even if you had ice and water at the same temperature (possible but difficult)”

            Dumbass, if you are ever near a lake partially covered in ice, or near either of the poles where there is ice floating on water, the ice and the water are the same temperature, at the points where they meet.

            Or have a cocktail, that’s why you put ice in the cocktail, so the temperature of the liquid is the same as the temperature of the ice. That’s why ice cubes freeze together in a glass.

            Maybe you should not have a cocktail, seems you have had too many already, let me try and catch up.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Dr Mark: “A 15 micron photon has an energy of about 1.3 x 10^-23 Joules.”
            Off by a factor of 1000. Given that “1.3” is correctly, I chalk this up to being sloppy or in a hurry (but understanding the underlying equations).

            SWENSON: “Try and get liquid water to absorb photons emitted by ice in other words heat the water using the photons emitted by the ice.”
            You shifted the goalpost in the middle of the sentence. Liquid water is quite good at absorbing IR photons. A 10.6 um photon or 5.6 um photon or 30 um photon will be absorbed just as well whether it comes from -20 C ice or + 20 C water or +2000 C filament.
            But simply “absorbing” a photon is different from “heating”.

            CRAIG T: “Ice doesn’t warm water because it doesn’t emit enough watts to do the job. It has nothing to do with the wavelength emitted.
            Or more specifically, doesn’t emit enough W/m^2. A 60 W lightbulb and 0.2 m^2 of ice both emit about 60 W. But since the lightbulb emits it from a very small area, it can be concentrated and used to warm water.

            SWENSON: “Ice can emit more than 300 W/m2 …”
            Well, yes, it can get up to about 315 W/m^2 at 273 K.

            SWENSON: “and of course this light can be concentrated by means of devices such as lenses, mirrors etc.”
            Nope. Sorry. Any such attempt will fail. Otherwise you could violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

            CRAIG T: “The blackbody radiation of ice at -0.15C gives off light with a wavelength of 10.6m. ”
            More specifically, the most intense radiation is 10.6um. It gives off light overa broad band around this value.

            STEPHEN: “At what temperature does 15micron CO2 emit?”
            CO2 at pretty much any temperature above absolute zero emits 15 um photons. The hotter it is, the more 15 um photons it emits.

        • Ken says:

          Most of the energy absorbed by CO2 results in expansion of the molecule as per gas law.

          As the molecule expands, it rises and the CO2 molecule transfers heat to O2 and N2 by collisions with billions of molecules. Convection. This accounts for most of the energy absorbed by CO2.

          The CO2 molecule also transmits IR energy. It works same as an LED; the molecule absorbs energy until it goes from a zero to a one state and then retransmits. This characteristic of CO2 is called ’emissivity’.

          The takeaway is CO2 doesn’t emit all of the energy it absorbs as IR.

          My understanding is CO2 emissivity is very low, taking about a second to go from zero to one state. The exact values are available from HITRAN.

          • Swenson says:

            Ken,

            Wrong again.

            Learn some physics. In the meantime, ask your fantasy what wavelengths CO2 emits if its temperature is raised by compression to say 500 C. Are those wavelengths different from those emitted by CO2 heated to 500 C by IR radiation?

            How about compressing air to obtain a temperature of 500 C? Could you tell what gases it contained by analysing the frequency of the photons emitted by the gas?

            Dream on, laddie, dream on.

            By the way, if you read stuff on Wiki, at least try to understand what you read.

          • Entropic man says:

            Swenson

            There’s a CO2 emission line at 10 micrometres, both at room temperature and at 500C. What changes with temperature is not the wavelength, but the intensity.

            This is why Sidewinders home on the 10 micrometre emissions from the CO2 in a jet engine exhaust.

          • Swenson says:

            EM,

            Nope.

            Which is why focussing the IR from ice (or the IR from CO2 at the same temperature) to produce, say, 30000 W/m2, cannot heat even a drop of water!

            “Light cannot be concentrated!”, you say? That would make you either ignorant or delusional. Ever focussed the Sun’s IR to set fire to something?

            Obviously not. The laws of optics apply, whether you like it or not.

            So focus the light from ice – then tell me how hot you can make something.

            Grind your teeth all you like. Neither Nature or I give a toss.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            Eman,

            Really? You should write a paper on that. Submit it to Journal of PHysical Chemistry.

          • Clint R says:

            Ken, molecules don’t “expand” when they have more energy. They just vibrate faster. The increased vibrations increases energy transfer during collisions, when causes the “gas” to expand.

            And “emissivity” is NOT the characteristic of a molecule changing states. Emissivity is the comparison of an object’s emission to that of a black body.

            Ent, CO2 does not emit in the 10μ range. You may be thinking of ice?

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Entropic Man says: “There’s a CO2 emission line at 10 micrometres, both at room temperature and at 500C. What changes with temperature is not the wavelength, but the intensity.”

            There are stronger and more famous bands near 15 um and 4 um. I didn’t realize there was one near 10 um too, but that does exist. I know something new.

            And yes, it is the INTENSITY that changes, not the wavelength.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Swenson: “Learn some physics. ”

            The irony …

            “what wavelengths CO2 emits if its temperature is raised by compression to say 500 C. Are those wavelengths different from those emitted by CO2 heated to 500 C by IR radiation?”
            The same sets of wavelengths are emitted either way. There would be some pressure broadening in the first case, but otherwise the spectra would be the same.

            “Which is why focussing the IR from ice (or the IR from CO2 at the same temperature) to produce, say, 30000 W/m2, cannot heat even a drop of water!”
            No. Diffuse, low intensity light simply cannot be focused to be any brighter or more intense than the source. The IR from ice (emitted at 300 w/m^2) cannot be focused any more intensely than 300 W/m.

            If you want a visual analogy, consider 4 40 watt fluorescent bulbs in a ceiling behind a diffuser. Next to it, put a single, undiffused 150 W incandescent bulb. A simple magnifying glass can focus the incandescent bulb to a very small, very intense spot on the floor. No possible set of mirrors or lenses can focus the fluorescent light into such a small, bright spot.

            The spot on the floor cannot be brighter than the surface of the filament or the surface of the diffuser plate.

            The focused light from 270 K ice cannot be ‘brighter’ than 300 W/m^2. Only the light from a 595 C (or hotter) surface can be focused to give 30,000 W/m^2.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            KEN: “Most of the energy absorbed by CO2 results in expansion of the molecule as per gas law.”
            Clint was right — most goes into vibrations of the molecule.

            “It works same as an LED … ”
            Well, sort of.

            “… the molecule absorbs energy until it goes from a zero to a one state and then retransmits. ”
            Two nitpicks.
            1) “Until” is the wrong word — it gives that impression this could be a gradual process, absorbing bits of energy at a time ‘until’ it reaches one unit of energy. The energy gets absorbed all at once.
            2) Vibrations can have energies of 0, E, 2E, 3E, etc. So in principle the molecule could absorb 15 um photon and jump from 0 to 1, or from 1 to 2, or from 2 to 3 etc. (Most often it would be in the ground state @

            “This characteristic of CO2 is called ’emissivity’.”
            No.

            Emissivity is simply a ratio of the thermal radiation emitted to the thermal radiation from a blackbody. CO2 *does* have a low emissivity, but that is mostly because it can only emit in certain bands, not across the entire IR spectrum.

        • zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
          zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

          What a tedious physics lecture,
          although I needed a nap.

          The only question is how much warming,
          net of any feedbacks.

          The locations (and timing)
          with the greatest amount of warming
          are also important. Because that determines
          whether warming has been, or will be,
          good news or bad news.

          We don’t need a Physics 101 lecture.
          Well, maybe a few “slow” commenters do.

          Former Juvenile Delinquent
          Now retired.

  36. Carbon500 says:

    The discussions about temperatures and CO2 are endless, and the media full of lurid scary tales about more fires, tornadoes, floods, rising sea levels and more.
    The climate of different regions of the Earth is never discussed, nor are the records for those regions in any detail.
    Here’s a link to the Koppen classification of climate:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6ppen_climate_classification
    Hopefully the link will work!
    Have any of the climate parameters for any region actually changed?
    How far back do the records go, and how reliable are they?

  37. Eben says:

    Solar cycle October update – final
    Average spots 35

    https://i.postimg.cc/YCcsnf0Q/EISNoct.png

    Still tracking cycle 24
    https://i.postimg.cc/xd3hbJ0M/solar-cycle-comparison.png

  38. bdgwx says:

    The monthly anomaly never made it below the 1981-2010 baseline from the previous La Nina despite predictions appearing on this blog. It looks like we’re going to get another chance at the La Nina. Will we finally make it below the 1981-2010 baseline? Will we even make it make the new 1991-2020 baseline this time?

  39. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The apparent decrease in specific humidity at the top of the troposphere (300 hPa) since 2000 primarily signifies the strong influence of decreasing solar activity on wind strength in the tropics (20N – 20S). Especially during the La Nina period, this will cause a decrease in water vapor in the mid-latitudes. Therefore, it is now important to focus on seasonal temperatures because in summer the presence of water vapor decreases surface temperature and in winter it increases. A stationary high over the Grand Prairies in summer will cause record heat and a similar high in winter will cause record low temperatures. This is exactly what will happen this winter. The slowing of jet currents during periods of very low solar activity is already evident in the stratosphere.
    Therefore, global temperature over the next few decades will have little to do with weather.
    https://i.ibb.co/x7gC0Mj/climindex-217-96-138-234-306-0-54-6.png

  40. Bindidon says:

    As explained often enough, the SSN shows, over the long term, nearly exactly the same behavior as the F10.7 solar flux:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ShXgzae4Fr_fOs9kWJiSzD8yXkcewQZY/view

    But for short term evaluations, SSN is less accurate because ‘zero or a few sun spots’ does not nean ‘no solar activity’, as we can see here:

    https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zzbz16oNW-xT-jdX1eT7-_5ZgYbUVFLI/view

    Next week I’ll have access to my desktop again, and then we will see how it has really looked like since October 1.

  41. gbaikie says:

    –Space solar power’s time may finally be coming
    By Leonard David about 16 hours ago

    This longtime sci-fi dream could actually become reality in the next decade or so, some researchers say.–
    https://www.space.com/space-solar-power-research-advances
    {linked from https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/

    [It would be more meaningful if Elon Musk said it]

    • gbaikie says:

      –The rapidly unfolding value of “New Space” is also reshaping the landscape of 21st century space activities, he added. “Two of the biggest hurdles to the realization of SSP have always been the cost of launch and the cost of hardware,” said Mankins. “Add flight rate, and all of a sudden you’re looking at numbers always talked about for solar power satellites.”–
      {Elon Musk}
      –Another recent change is the dawn of the megaconstellations, Mankins added.

      That’s exemplified by SpaceX’s Starlink broadband network, a mass-production effort that now cranks out 30 tons of satellites a month. SpaceX is on course to potentially manufacture 40,000 satellites within five years, and launch all of them.

      “The path to low-cost hardware has been shown,” Mankins said. “It’s modular and mass-produced. The hurdles of less-expensive launch and lowering hardware costs have been overcome.”–
      {Elon Musk}

      But anyhow though Musk says can do $100 per kg to orbit, and $100 to orbit was given as magic number to do Space Power Satellite.

      We aren’t there yet.
      I have said it would take another 50 years, assuming we did the right things.
      We need to explore the Moon to determine whether there is mineable water, and we have explore Mars- to determine whether Mars settlements might be viable.

      Musk might be pushing things, faster than I expected, but we have not explored the Moon, nor Mars, yet.

    • Ken says:

      The problem with space solar is how to get the energy to earth surface without increasing earth energy budget.

      • gbaikie says:

        The problem is a way to cheap electrical in orbit, at the moment, is to beam electrical power from earth surface to Earth orbit.
        Or to go the other way, one needs cheaper electrical power in space than our current price electrical power on Earth surface.

        One could do like we doing alternative energy, but it then likewise would be wasting tax dollars.

  42. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Today’s strong increase in solar wind speed will result in an increase in wind speed along the equator and a decrease in the Nio 3.4 index.
    https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
    With the increase in solar activity in the coming days, the Nio 3.4 index may drop to -1.5 C in November.
    https://i.ibb.co/0JRXK6f/planetary-k-index.gif

  43. Swenson says:

    Here’s some nonsense from someone calling himself Dr Mark –

    “Because of this the infrared radiation from the surface of the earth mostly does not escape. Rather it warms the lower atmosphere.”

    What a complete load of rubbish!

    Even the dim-witted Dr Mark should accept that the surface temperature drops at night.

    He may be stupid enough to deny that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature from the molten state over the past four and a half billion years or so, regardless of continuous sunlight during that period, and notwithstanding the fact that the atmosphere in the past contained far more CO2 than today,

    Even the average dimwit knows that an object heated by the Sun during the day loses all that heat the following night – its temperature falls.

    Not terribly bright, Dr Mark.

    • “Even the average dimwit knows that an object heated by the Sun during the day loses all that heat the following night its temperature falls.”

      The incoming and outgoing energy are rarely in balance — that’s why out planet is always warming or cooling,

      • Bindidon says:

        Richard Greene

        Sorry, but the laws of Thermodynamics are somewhat unequivocal.

        Don’t tell mw you would want to contradict

        https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/energy

        ” The earth-atmosphere energy balance is achieved as the energy received from the Sun balances the energy lost by the Earth back into space. In this way, the Earth maintains a stable average temperature and therefore a stable climate. ”

        What you are telling about is something quite different: the ups and downs inside of Earth’s weather and climate system.

        • Clint R says:

          Braindead-idon found another link he can’t understand.

          The ridiculous graphic has Earth emitting 16% more energy than the solar arriving at TOA!

          That’s why they’re “braindead cult idiots”….

          • Craig T says:

            Clint R says:
            “The ridiculous graphic has Earth emitting 16% more energy than the solar arriving at TOA!”
            https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/energy

            From the graphic:
            At the top of the atmosphere – Incoming energy from the sun balanced with outgoing energy from the earth.

            Incoming energy
            +100 units Shortwave radiation from the sun.

            Outgoing energy
            -23 units Shortwave radiation reflected back to space by clouds.
            -7 units Shortwave radiation reflected to space by the earth’s surface.
            -49 units Longwave radiation from the atmosphere into space.
            -9 units Longwave radiation from clouds into space.
            -12 units Longwave radiation from the earth’s surface into space.

            -100 units Total Outgoing

          • Swenson says:

            Craig T,

            Complete nonsense, of course.

            Unless you can explain how the Earth cooled from the molten state.

            During the night, all the energy received during the day flees to outer space. Vanished. Gone. Plus a little of the Earth’s internal heat.

            Want to deny reality? Get a job with NASA, NOAA, or the NSF.

          • Clint R says:

            Craig T, you always seem to overlook the meaningful parts.

            TOA = 100 units
            Emitted by surface = 116 units

            Earth surface is emitting more than the TOTAL energy supplied by Sun. People that understand thermodynamics know that is impossible.

          • Craig T says:

            Clint R says: “Craig T, you always seem to overlook the meaningful parts.

            TOA = 100 units
            Emitted by surface = 116 units”

            Did you overlook that the table was broken into 3 sections?

            1-At the top of the atmosphere – Incoming energy from the sun balanced with outgoing energy from the earth.
            100 units in, 100 units out

            2-The atmosphere itself – Energy into the atmosphere is balanced with outgoing energy from atmosphere.
            156 units in, 156 units out

            3-At the earth’s surface – Energy absorbed is balanced with the energy released
            145 units in, 145 units out

            Here’s the breakdown for the Earth’s surface:

            Incoming Energy
            +47 units Absorbed shortwave radiation from the sun.
            +98 units Absorbed longwave radiation from gases in atmosphere.
            +145 units Total Incoming

            Outgoing Energy
            -116 units Longwave radiation emitted by the surface.
            -5 units Removal of heat by convection (rising warm air).
            -24 units Heat required by the processes of evaporation and
            sublimation and therefore removed from the surface.
            -145 units Total Outgoing

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            The Earth’s surface can and does emit more energy than it receives from the Sun.

            The Earth’s radiating surface (different from it physical surface, if you are able to understand the concepts) emits the same amount of energy it receives from the Sun.

            There is no problem with actual thermodynamics, most who actually study it correctly understand how this is possible. Some, like you and Swenson plus Gordon Robertson have not studied actual real thermodynamics. You get your education from contrarian blogs like the lunatic Joseph Postma or the Crackpot Claes Johnson. They are proved wrong many times but are not able to correct the errors in their thought process.

            The evidence the Earth’s physical surface emits more energy than it receives from the Sun has been given to you many times. You are a classic denier. You reject reality in favor of your opinions. No one can convince you otherwise though many intelligent people have made such an attempt with a glimmer of hope only to see you ignore all reality in favor of your blind and ignorant opions.

            I guess for the multiple times here is the evidence the Earth’s physical surface emits more energy than it receives from the Sun.

            https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_618490624a1b2.png

            You can clearly see (even with no calculations) that the physical surface (the red line in the graph) emits far more energy than it receives from the Sun. Don’t be so stupid, please! I do not get an pleasure from pointing out your incredible stupidity. I am hoping you can see how dumb your points are and wake up from the state of deep ignorance and denial. Your opinions are meaningless, your common sense based upon your ignorant opinions has no value. You need to look for evidence to support your points. You never do.

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            A Bible Verse that describes your personality quite well.

            https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%2018%3A2&version=ESV

            “A fool takes no pleasure in understanding,
            but only in expressing his opinion.”

          • Swenson says:

            Norman,

            Of course the Earth emits more energy than it receives from the Sun, you twit! It’s called cooling!

            I’ve been telling you that’s why the Earth has cooled to its present temperature from the molten state. You want to keep insisting it hasn’t?

            If the Earth emits more energy from the Sun than it absorbs, it certainly doesn’t get hotter (well, apart from in your delusional fantasy, of course).

            Try rephrasing your nonsense so you aren’t agreeing with what I have been saying all along.

            How hard can it be?

          • Clint R says:

            Craig T, you always seem to overlook the meaningful parts.

            Using 100 units of energy from the sun as a baseline the energy balance is as follows:

        • Eben says:

          Here comes the energy amplifier model again LOL ,
          100 units hits the top of the atmosphere, turns into 145 units by the time it makes it through the atmosphere and hits the ground below, Literally energy out of thin air
          Free energy for nothing – Watts for free

          Bizarro planet fizzix at its best

        • Bindidon says:

          I was not interested in showing a graph poeple like Clint R can’t understand.

          I only wanted to publish the source of the paragraph I posted.

          There are three separated energy balances:

          – TOA
          – Atmo
          – surface

          If you even can’t see that all three are correct: fine for you.

          The braindead cult idiot nicknamed ‘Bindidon’ has NO problem to grasp all that.

          When I see absolutely dumb statements like

          ” The ridiculous graphic has Earth emitting 16% more energy than the solar arriving at TOA! ”

          even though these numbers belong to different balances, I don’t wonder about such people denying Moon’s rotation about its polar axis.

        • Craig T says:

          Swenson says:
          “Complete nonsense, of course.
          Unless you can explain how the Earth cooled from the molten state.”

          http://csmgeo.csm.jmu.edu/geollab/fichter/platetect/heathistory.html

          “During the night, all the energy received during the day flees to outer space. Vanished. Gone. Plus a little of the Earths internal heat.”

          So no matter the season, all the energy received from the sun is gone by morning? The average August low temperature on Mauna Kea is below freezing. In Houston we’re lucky if it gets below 80F that time of year. If Houston loses all the daytime heat to space every night we must be setting on a geothermal hot spot.

          • Swenson says:

            Craig T,

            You wrote –

            “So no matter the season, all the energy received from the sun is gone by morning?”

            Indeed. You may have noticed temperatures drop during the night, and that winter is generally colder than summer.

            If you are so delusional that you believe that the earth has not cooled to its present temperature from the molten state, then good for you!

            Enjoy your fantasy. Reject reality!

            I don’t care what your fantasy world is like, and neither does Nature.

            Carry on trying to compose better gotchas. Your attempts to date are pathetic, at best.

          • Craig T says:

            “If you are so delusional that you believe that the earth has not cooled to its present temperature from the molten state, then good for you!”

            I think it’s possible to believe the Earth has cooled from a molten state without believing that all the energy from the sun in a day is gone by morning.

            “You may have noticed temperatures drop during the night, and that winter is generally colder than summer.”

            I’ve also noticed that winter has less hours of sunlight than summer. Winters are colder because less sunlight is received during the day. I have yet to see anywhere on Earth where summer mornings are the same temperature as winter mornings.

            Overnight cooling depends on weather conditions. Clear, dry air allows significant cooling but high humidity and cloud cover reduces cooling. Lakes and oceans retain heat longer than land.

          • Swenson says:

            Craig T,

            You wrote –

            “I think it’s possible to believe the Earth has cooled from a molten state without believing that all the energy from the sun in a day is gone by morning.”

            Go ahead and believe it, then.

            You can even believe that adding additional CO2 to the atmosphere will make the Earth hotter!

            At least you seem to have accepted the fact that the Earth has cooled to its present temperature from the molten state, notwithstanding four and a half billion years of continuous sunlight. That shoukd tell you something,

            Make sure you include that in your GHE description.

            Ho, ho, ho!

  44. Willard says:

    Manual pingback for Memory Fallible Mike Flynn:

    “Earth has never stopped cooling”

    It is important to stipulate whether we are talking about:
    A) the entire 6E24 kg bulk of the earth
    B) the thin surface layer where life exists

    Certainly the bulk has cooled and continues to cool.
    Certainly the surface layer has both warmed and cooled many times. Every time the earth entered an interglacial period, the temperature rose.

    (A) has nothing to do with climate. [Well almost nothing. There is a ~ 0.1 W/m^2 heat flow up from the interior that needs to be added in with the other heat flows. But since the sun supplies ~ 240 W/m^2, the extra 0.04% from the interior is not particularly important.]
    (B) has everything to do with climate, and with the energy balances related to sun, radiation, evaporation, etc. Claiming “the earth has never stopped cooling” in a discussion of *climate* is misleading.

    https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-968031

    “Misleading” might not be the way I would put it.

    • Swenson says:

      Whickering Wee Willy,

      Name one person gives a toss how you put (or where you put it, for that matter).

      • Willard says:

        Mike Flynn, Mike Flynn.

        • Swenson says:

          Wee Willy Idiot,

          Repeating the name of your invisible fantasy figure twice, does not count as even one person, let alone two!

          You really have lost it, haven’t you?

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            Mirror Fresco,

            The first “Mike Flynn” was the answer to your silly question.

            The second was your address.

            Not sure why you keep playing dumb, but do continue.

            Oh! Oh! Oh!

          • Swenson says:

            Wee Willy Wanker,

            Why would you think a creation of your own incoherent fantasy counts as a “person”?

            That is about as stupid as appealing to your own authority by linking to something you wrote on another blog!

            You aren’t Widely Respected And Revered Willard, you know. Just Whiny Wee WIIy – climate crackpot and incompetent idiot.

            Can you name anyone who is prepared to state otherwise? Your imaginary playmate, “Mike Flynn” perhaps?

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            Masquerade Flimsy,

            Everybody knows here who’s Mike Flynn:

            Mike Flynn | June 5, 2016 at 10:39 pm |

            Anthiny Purcell,

            a) The atmosphere prevents around 30% of the Suns energy from reaching the surface. It is impossible to achieve temperatures in excess of 95 C using the unconcentrated rays of the Sun, unlike the Moon, where temperatures routinely exceed 100 C for the same exposure time and reflectivity, inclination etc.

            b) No snowball state is possible at present. The Earth is a big blob of molten rock, surrounded by a very thin crust of cooler rock. The Suns radiation, combined with the present surface temperature of the of the molten blob on which we live, makes your snowball theory impossible. At the Equator, at sea level, given the amount of insolation large deep bodies of water cannot freeze to the crust. The temperature gradient within the crust is in excess of 20 K/km. Water at a depth of 5 km is surrounded by rock at something like 100 C. The water cannot lose heat fast enough to freeze.

            c) Real scientists, such as Lord Kelvin, John Tyndall, and others changed their minds, based on observed fact and experiment. Your misinterpretation of the first law of dynamics is one one widely shared by climatologists. Anybody silly enough to believe that an Earth which has cooled for four and a half billion years, (bathed in continuous sunlight), has lost precisely as much energy as it has received, is probably a Warmist. Or somewhat deluded.

            At the moment, the Earths internally generated heat is quite small small compared with the past. It is probably around the equivalent of 20 tonnes of matter converted to energy per annum according to geophysicists. Thats an awful lot of Hiroshimas! Less than one gram of matter converted to energy at Hiroshima. Theres a lot of grams in twenty tonnes or so!

            And yet, the Earth continues to cool, in line with laws of physics as we know them.

            d) ERL, TOA, Venus Warmist Weasel Words the usual fatuous nonsense.

            No greenhouse effect. Never has been, never will be. Just as with Uri Geller bending spoons cannot be demonstrated in the presence of unbelievers. Not happening. At the very least, never been demonstrated by any repeatable scientific experiment. Cargo Cult science at its finest!

            If you want to disagree, would you mind quoting me directly? Shrieking abuse at me wont help me to find any mistakes I may have inadvertently made.

            Cheers.

            https://judithcurry.com/2016/06/02/the-cloud-climate-conundrum/#comment-788322

            Cheers!

          • Swenson says:

            Whinnying Wee Willy,

            Posting a blog comment is supposed to mean something other than you are a delusional fantasist?

            “Everybody knows . . . “?

            Everybody knows you are deranged, that’s for sure. Your infatuation with Mike Flynn even shows by the way you imitate him’! Cheers? Can’t you think for yourself?

            It seems I agree with Mike Flynn. I notice you haven’t disagreed with anything he wrote.

            I don’t blame you. You would have to be nuts to disagree that the Earth started off with a molten surface, and subsequently cooled down to its present temperature.

            Go on – disagree. Prove how out of touch with reality you are.

  45. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Geopotential height anomalies over the Arctic Circle have reached the higher troposphere.
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_HGT_ANOM_OND_NH_2021.png

  46. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The ozone hole in the South could be at a record high again this year in November and December and break the 2020 record in those months.
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_plot.png
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_OND_SH_2021.png

  47. Clint R says:

    I need to finish up with Mark, before I forget.

    His first sentence has already been covered. He made a mistake with the energy of a 15μ photon by a factor of 1000.

    Continuing…

    “If that photon is absorbed by a surface the electromagnetic energy is converted into thermal energy and the temperature of the surface will rise, albeit, by a very tiny amount.”

    This is a common misconception. Just because a photon is absorbed, that does not automatically mean the surface will increase in temperature. Remember, temperature is a measure of the average vibrational energy. If an absorbed photon does not raise the average vibrational energy, the temperature does not increase. And just adding more of the same photons does not make a difference.

    “However, if the surface absorbs a large number of these photons its temperature will rise by a measurable amount.”

    Adding more photons with the same frequency does NOT increase the frequency. One photon with frequency f, and a second photon with frequency f, only have a frequency f. They do NOT have a frequency 2f. Molecule frequencies do not “add”.

    “You can do a simple experiment to understand this. Take an old-fashioned vacuum tube. Put a finger on the surface of the vacuum tube. Run a large enough current through the filament of the tube so that it just begins to glow red. You will be able to feel the temperature of the glass envelope increase. Since there is no air in the tube, it is only the photons emitted by the filament that warm the envelope.”

    Now, it really gets good. Mark is trying to use reality to pervert reality.

    A vacuum tube usually operates with a plate emitting temperature of about 1000K. But, if it’s emitting visible red light, the temperature is much higher — up to 2000K or higher. So Mark is trying to convince us that because 2000K (1727C, 3140F) will “warm” our finger, then the atmosphere will warm the surface. (The temperature of the UAH atmosphere level used for Global temperature anomaly tracking is about 264K (-9C, 15F), well below freezing.)

    His ploy is similar to the old “bait and switch” used by con artists. I never know if people like Mark are just ignorant or dishonest.

    • Ball4 says:

      “And just adding more of the same photons does not make a difference.”

      According to Clint’s unreliable comment absorbed photon energy is thus completely destroyed. Clint R is, as usual, deceptive and/or uninformed.

    • bobdroege says:

      But the energies of photons do add.

      That’s why a CO2 laser can cut steel.

      • Swenson says:

        b,

        Yes, and Nature is just brimming with lasers, isn’t it?

        /sarc off

        Idiot.

        Now turn off the power to your laser. Not doing much at all, is it?

        • bobdroege says:

          more irrelevant bullshit in an attempt to look smart

          not working is it

          • Swenson says:

            b,

            You dimwit. Light amplification by stimulated emitted radiation (LASER) does not occur in nature.

            I don’t need to attempt to look smarter than you. It is self-evident.

          • bobdroege says:

            Define nature, you simpleton.

          • Swenson says:

            No, dimwit, I won’t. Why should I?. If you don’t know what nature is, you should specialise in climate crankery.

          • bobdroege says:

            Swenson,

            but then dimwit, I was responding to Clint R’s statement

            “Adding more photons with the same frequency does NOT increase the frequency. One photon with frequency f, and a second photon with frequency f, only have a frequency f. They do NOT have a frequency 2f. Molecule frequencies do not add.”

            I guess he doesn’t understand that the energies of photons add when they are absorbed by a surface.

            That’s why lots of low energy photons can indeed melt steel.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        bob d..”But the energies of photons do add. That’s why a CO2 laser can cut steel”.

        ***

        Bit of confusion Bob. A laser emits coherent light, meaning the ‘waves’ are all in phase and can add. EM emitted from the normal light source is totally incoherent and cannot add. Furthermore, a laser uses forced emission that ensures the ‘waves’ are all in phase.

        Claiming that a laser emits photons is absurd. No one knows what a photon is, it’s nothing more than a definition aimed at giving EM a particle property. However, the quantum of EM referred to as a particle, has a frequency, and no known particle has a frequency.

        In other words, a photon is an imaginary concept, much like a blackbody, and no one has any idea what it is.

        Some wags in quantum physics are trying to claim an electron has wave-like properties, extending that to claim an electron has a frequency, like the fabled photon. The frequency of an electron, however, is a reference to it harmonic motion around the atomic nucleus, the number of times it orbits per second. The electron itself, as a particle, has no frequency.

        • Craig T says:

          Gordon Robertson says:
          “A laser emits coherent light, meaning the ‘waves’ are all in phase and can add. EM emitted from the normal light source is totally incoherent and cannot add.”

          One watt of coherent light doesn’t deliver any more energy than a watt of decoherent light, it just can’t travel in as tight of a beam.

          “Claiming that a laser emits photons is absurd. No one knows what a photon is, its nothing more than a definition aimed at giving EM a particle property. However, the quantum of EM referred to as a particle, has a frequency, and no known particle has a frequency.”

          Does that mean Einstein has to give back one of his Nobel prizes?

          “Some wags in quantum physics are trying to claim an electron has wave-like properties, extending that to claim an electron has a frequency, like the fabled photon. The frequency of an electron, however, is a reference to it harmonic motion around the atomic nucleus, the number of times it orbits per second. The electron itself, as a particle, has no frequency.”

          Are you saying an electron literally orbits a nucleus like the moon orbits the Earth? Unlike the moon an electron does not orbit (nor does it rotate on an axis.)

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            craig…”One watt of coherent light doesn’t deliver any more energy than a watt of decoherent light, it just can’t travel in as tight of a beam”.

            ***

            Nothing to do with power. Coherent light is EM with the same frequency, therefore the wave troughs are all aligned and can add. Incoherent light has a broadband array of wavelength that cannot add.

            Re Einstein. He claimed circa 1950 that no one knows if EM is composed of waves or photons. When Einstein referred to a photon, he was talking about a quantum of energy that excited one electron on a surface. He never claimed that such a quantum existed as a mass-less particle with momentum, as a photon is ridiculously defined.

            BTW…no one has ever observed a quantum of energy leaving or entering an electron.

            The reason he used that inference is that it coincided with Planck’s quanta, referenced as ‘h’. The intensity of a photon was claimed to be E = hf. Note, the ‘f’. It is derived from the angular frequency of the electron that emits the quantum. How that frequency becomes a quantum of energy is not at all understood.

            You need to get it in your head that a photon is a model of a particle of EM, if such an entity exists. There is not one iota of scientific evidence that a photon does exist.

            I am not convinced that electrons do orbit the nucleus but if you have proof of something else, let’s hear it. Quantum theory is based on the notion of orbiting electrons. Schrodinger’s wave equation, the basis of quantum theory is based on an orbiting electron confined to a discrete quantum orbital energy level.

          • RLH says:

            ‘Orbit’ is word salad to describe something that occurs. It doesn’t mean what it means elsewhere. Planets orbit a star which means one thing. Electrons ‘orbit’ a nucleus which means something different.

          • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

            Gordon Robertson at 11:35 PM

            “Re Einstein. He claimed circa 1950 that no one knows if EM is composed of waves or photons.

            Not in 1950.

            In 1905 Einstein proposed that ordinary light behaves as though it consists of a stream of independent localized units of energy that he called lightquanta. He was led to this revolutionary view by a statistical analysis of the properties of an idealized sample of radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium. His suggestion of this hypothesis arose from the
            close analogy he perceived between the behavior of radiation and the behavior of a gas.

            “no one has ever observed a quantum of energy leaving or entering an electron”

            There is nothing inside an electron. Nothing enters or leaves an electron

          • Craig T says:

            Gordon Robertson says: “Quantum theory is based on the notion of orbiting electrons. Schrodinger’s wave equation, the basis of quantum theory is based on an orbiting electron confined to a discrete quantum orbital energy level. Schrodingers wave equation, the basis of quantum theory is based on an orbiting electron confined to a discrete quantum orbital energy level.”

            Orbitals are not the same as orbiting. Schrodinger was one of those “wags” that says electrons are matter waves. Because it’s impossible to know both the position and energy of an electron, orbitals are where the electron of a given energy is likely to be 90% of the time.

            “There is not one iota of scientific evidence that a photon does exist.”
            https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/quantum-physics/photons/a/photoelectric-effect

        • bobdroege says:

          In my profession we count photons, one by one, or two by two, and then we draw maps of peoples brains, or hearts, or other anatomical structures.

          How about an electron microscope, how does that work, I’ll let you do some googling.

          And “EM emitted from the normal light source is totally incoherent and cannot add.”

          You can still heat something with this incoherent light from a lightbulb, or brighten a room, or bake a cake, that’s about your speed, baking a cake with an ez-bake oven.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      Clint says: “If an absorbed photon does not raise the average vibrational energy, the temperature does not increase. “
      Where do you think the ‘absorbed energy’ goes when a photon is absorbed by a surface?

      It has to go *somewhere* (conservation of energy). Where does it go besides the vibrations of the atoms in the solid?

      If the photon has energy E and there are N atoms, the average energy goes up by E/N when the photon gets absorbed. It goes up by 2E/N when 2 photons get absorbed. It goes up by nE/N when n photons get absorbed.

      “Adding more photons with the same frequency does NOT increase the frequency. One photon with frequency f, and a second photon with frequency f, only have a frequency f. They do NOT have a frequency 2f. Molecule frequencies do not “add”.”
      You seem to miss the fact that vibrations can have different AMPLITUDE, A, as well as different FREQUENCY, f.
      * One photon with frequency f has energy E = hf, and would cause a vibration with frequency f and amplitude A.
      * Two photons with frequency f have energy 2E = 2hf, and would cause a vibration with the same frequency f and larger amplitude (2)^0.5 A and twice the energy.

      “So Mark is trying to convince us that because 2000K (1727C, 3140F) will “warm” our finger, then the atmosphere will warm the surface. “
      Not sure if this is intentional ‘bait and switch’ or simply a ‘strawman’ due to inability to understand the point being made.

      This was about photons (from the filament) being able to warm a surface (the glass).

      The absorbed photons (from the filament) cause the temperature of the surface (the glass) to increase. Exactly as Mark said. He was not making any point about ‘warming a finger’ (the finger is simply a ‘thermometer’ for measuring the temperature of the glass). He did not mention earth’s atmosphere or earth’s surface in this comment.

      Stick to the point. Can multiple photons get absorbed? Can multiple photons raise the temperature more than one photon?

      • Clint R says:

        Folkerts, thanks for quoting me accurately:

        “Adding more photons with the same frequency does NOT increase the frequency. One photon with frequency f, and a second photon with frequency f, only have a frequency f. They do NOT have a frequency 2f. Molecule frequencies do not “add”.

        If you cant refute that with correct physics, then all your blah-blah means NOTHING.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          No one ever anywhere said “molecule frequencies add”. The “correct physics” is that more photons = bigger amplitude.

          • Clint R says:

            I never said “molecule frequencies add”, either. I stated “molecule frequencies do NOT add”.

            I’ve seen all your debate tricks. Stick to the point.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Try to keep up. You said: “Adding more photons with the same frequency does NOT increase the frequency.”

            Your emphasis implies that you think people need to learn this fact. I was pointing out that everyone (who understands a bit of physics) already knows this. Your admonition is pointless.

            This was part of your larger argument along the lines:
            * energy is related to frequency
            * more photons don’t increase frequency.
            ** therefore more photons don’t increase energy
            * energy is related to temperature
            ** therefore more photons don’t increase temperature.

            I pointed out the error that we don’t need to increase frequency to increase energy. So your admonition is not only pointless, it is misleading as well. More photons can and do get absorbed. They can and do raise the temperature.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          “And just adding more of the same photons does not make a difference.”
          Yes. It does make a difference. Adding more of the same photons continues to add energy into the surface.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          Folkerts, thanks for quoting me accurately”

          You’re welcome. Maybe you could return the favor and either:
          a) find anything to even remotely backup your insulting and outlandish claim:
          “The idiot Folkerts once said two ice cubes, each emitting 315 W/m^2, could raise the temperature to 325k, because the fluxes would add!”
          b) apologize and admit you were wrong.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            ME> ” … could add some sunlight (315 W/m^2) … ”

            So no. Not even CLOSE. Unless you think the sun is a second ice cube.

          • Clint R says:

            Folkerts, you’re essentially adding fluxes!

            Here’s how you get your 325K:

            T^4 + T^4 = (new temp)^4

            273^4 + 273^4 = (new temp)^4

            325K = new temp

            You’re adding fluxes, without understanding you can NOT do that. You’re wrong, and you can’t learn.

            THAT is why you’re an idiot.

            Two ice cubes can’t raise the temperature to 325K (52C, 125F). That’s NOT reality, yet you keep pushing the concept because you need it to support your cult. And, you can’t learn.

            THAT is why you’re a braindead cult idiot.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Two ice cubes can’t raise the temperature … “

            Once again. Not two ice cubes. Ice cubes and the sun. The sun is not an ice cube.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Folkerts, youre essentially adding fluxes!

            I am adding ENERGIES.
            * Each second, each square meter receives 315 J of energy due to thermal radiation from the ice.
            * Each second, each square meter receives 315 J of energy due to thermal radiation from the sun.
            ** Each second, each square meter receives 630 J of energy total.

            To be in steady-state, the surface must be also EMITTING 630 J each second from each square meter. That means it must be 325 K.

            Don’t keep re-phrasing my words and attacking your strawman.

          • Clint R says:

            Folkerts, you are adding fluxes!

            315 W/m^2 to 315/m^2.

            You don’t have a clue about radiative physics, or reality. You’re claiming ice cubes can raise the temperature to 325K. Now, spin your way out of this mess!

            That’s why this is so much fun.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            The sun is not an ice cube. I am adding energies. Your continued efforts to reframe this as ‘fluxes’ and to call the sun an ice cube is fascinating.

            ********************************************

            315 J worth of energy in the form of photons hits and gets absorbed by each square meter of the surface each second, coming from ice. Another 315 J worth of energy is added in the form of photons each square meter of the surface each second, coming from the sun.

            How much total energy hits each square meter each second? If not 630 J, why? and what is your answer?
            How much total energy gets absorbed by each square meter each second? If not 630 J, why? and what is your answer?
            In steady state, how much total energy gets emitted by each square meter each second? If not 630 J, why? and what is your answer?

          • Clint R says:

            Tim, this will be hard for you to understand because you don’t know radiative physics and you don’t understand thermodynamics. So, just ignore this and start typing out your next long, rambling, irrelevant comment. This is just for anyone that wants to learn:

            Adding energy does NOT always guarantee a temperature increase. It has to be the “right kind” of energy for the system. For example, if a glass of water at 40F is poured into a bowl of water at 80F, the combination is NOT 120F. Energy has been added to the bowl of water, but the temperature does NOT increase. It’s basically the same for flux.

            If sunlight is adding 700 W/m^2 to a surface, ice adding 300 W/m^2 will NOT increase the temperature of the surface. Two ice cubes can NOT warm something to a higher temperature than the ice. In terms of thermodynamics, energy does NOT organize itself. For energy to raise the temperature of a system, either the added energy must have a higher potential, or work must be added.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Lets jump to the crux.

            “If sunlight is adding 700 W/m^2 to a surface, ice adding 300 W/m^2 will NOT increase the temperature of the surface. “

            Impress us with your skill. What *will* the actual temperature of a blackbody object be ….
            In deep space with 700 W/m^2 of sunlight?
            … [Answer 333 K]

            In deep space with 700 W/m^2 of sunlight AND then surrounded by a large shell of ice emitting 300 W/m^2 (with a small hole cut to let the sunlight in)?
            … [Answer 364 K; unless you are Clint — then it is still 333 K].

          • Clint R says:

            Good job, Folkerts. You ignored my comment very well.

            Why learn physics when you can just make stuff up, huh?

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            Good job! You …

            1) ignore yet again that I am taking about ice and sun, not ice and ice.
            2) don’t recognize the crux of your own comment.
            3) can’t perform even simple calculations for or against your own conclusions.

          • Nate says:

            For Clint its all tactics and no facts.

            “Adding energy does NOT always guarantee a temperature increase. It has to be the ‘right kind’ of energy for the system. For example, if a glass of water at 40F is poured into a bowl of water at 80F, the combination is NOT 120F.”

            Here the tactic is, when caught with no answers for the actual problem being discussed, use a Faulty Analogy!

            Faulty Analogy is the go-to for Clint when he doesnt understand the actual science being discussed.

            The implication being that the ‘right kind’ of photons must be involved else they don’t count and don’t transfer energy.

            Of course this is nonsense.

            Now Clint the dimwit troll will laughably claim that Tim and I ‘just dont understand physics’.

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            You made a specific prediction.
            “If sunlight is adding 700 W/m^2 to a surface, ice adding 300 W/m^2 will NOT increase the temperature of the surface.”
            More power = constant temperature

            I made a specific counter-prediction.
            700 W/m^2 sunlight + 0 W/m^2 CMBR
            –> (700/5.67e-8)^0.25 = 325 K
            700 W/m^2 sunlight + 300 W/m^2 ice radiation
            –> (1000/5.67e-8)^0.25 = 364 K
            More power = higher temperature.

            Only one of us can be right. I use P/A = (sigma) T*4 to calculate the temperature of a blackbody.
            P = total power radiated (= total power absorbed at steady-state)
            A = area of blackbody radiator

            What do you use?

          • Clint R says:

            Folkerts:

            1) Wrong. You are trying to add 315 W/m^2 sunlight to 315 W/m^2 ice. But, 315 W/m^2 = 315 W/m^2. So you are basically adding ice to ice.

            2) Wrong. The crux of my comment is “reality”. I recognize and accept reality. You reject reality.

            3) Wrong. In fact, I identified your bogus calculation for the 325K. You were trying to add flux, but denied it. Deny, distort, pervert — that’s what you do.

            One of your mistakes (4:18 PM) is in mis-using an imaginary black body. You have to be careful, as you can easily violate the laws of thermodynamics.

            But enough of your diversions and distractions. In your make-believe physics, if two ice cubes can warm something to 325K, how many ice cubes will it take to boil water (374K)?

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “But, 315 W/m^2 = 315 W/m^2”

            There is a fundamental difference that you apparently cannot fathom. Sunlight has fundamentally different spectrum than ice. For one thing sunlight has visible light and ice doesn’t. This fundamental difference means a fundamentally different result when we try to add the fluxes.

            You are 100% correct that we can’t add a flux of 315 W/m^2 from ice + 315 W/m^2 from ice and get a flux of 630 W/m^2. No argument there at all. I have agreed many times.

            What if it was a flux of 315 W/m^2 from sunlight + 315 W/m^2 from sunlight. Do you agree those could add? Do you agree that we could take a couple mirrors and reflect noon sunlight of 1000 W/m^2 to get even brighten light with 2000 W/m^2 of flux? Or take two lightbulbs and make the walls of my office brighter than 1 bulb by itself? Or take a large parabolic mirror and focus sunlight to get maybe 100,000 W/m^2 of flux (enough to burn wood)?

          • Clint R says:

            Oh, so equal fluxes are different?

            That’s funny enough I will allow that one distraction.

            Now, back to the issue: In your make-believe physics, if two ice cubes can warm something to 325K, how many ice cubes will it take to boil water (374K)?

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “Oh, so equal fluxes are different?”

            Yes! Absolutely. Are you seriously going to argue that sunlight is the same as the ‘light’ from ice? We can literally see they are different.

            Are you seriously going to argue that 2 lightbulbs can’t provide brighter, more intense light than 1 bulb?

            Or try this. I’ll take a large magnifying glass and aim it at the sun (even dimmed to ~ 300 W/m^2) with your hand behind it. You take a magnifying glass and aim it at ice (or even a warm wall) with my hand behind it. Are you willing to do that? Do you *still* think the two equal fluxes are ‘the same’?

          • Clint R says:

            You’re dimming sunlight and then magnifying it! That’s funnier that your previous distraction.

            But, back to the issue: In your make-believe physics, if two ice cubes can warm something to 325K, how many ice cubes will it take to boil water (374K)?

          • Tim Folkerts says:

            “In your make-believe physics, if two ice cubes can warm something to 325K, how many ice cubes will it take to boil water (374K)?”

            This has been asked and answered in basically every comment in this thread. It can’t be done.

            Now tells us which magnifying glass you are willing to put your hand behind. One aimed at the sun (about 1000 W/m^2) or one aimed at a 90C wall (also 1000 W/m2)? One will make your hand pleasantly warm all over. One will burn a small patch of skin.

          • Clint R says:

            “It can’t be done.”

            What can’t be done? You can’t answer the question?

            (See, I know all your tricks and deceptions.)

            The question remains: “In your make-believe physics, if two ice cubes can warm something to 325K, how many ice cubes will it take to boil water (374K)?”

            I’m not going to waste any more time with your attempts to evade.

          • Nate says:

            Clint sez “Im not going to waste any more time…”

            Translation: I have no answers, and will now head for the hills, and come back later and troll some more.

  48. Bindidon says:

    On the one hand, you have this beautiful NINO3+4 picture any Pseudoskeptic will agree to:

    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Mon.gif

    But on the other hand, when you show this temperature forecasting picture for Europe (coming from the same institution – NOAA)

    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/htmls/euT2me3Sea.html

    any Pseudoskeptic will tell you:

    ” Vade retro Satanas! That’s alarmism! “

  49. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    In October, “hot weather” occurred in northeastern Canada.
    https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2021/october%202021/202110_Map.png

  50. Swenson says:

    Another scintillating attempt at obfuscation by peabrain bobdroege –

    “I was responding to you claiming water wouldnt absorb photons from ice, not that those photons would increase the temperature of the ice, dumbass.”

    Onlookers might note that what the peabrain is saying is that photons emitted by ice will not increase the temperature of the ice! Well, duh!

    Maybe peabrain is desperately trying to avoid admitting that water cannot be warmed by the radiation from ice. Poor peabrain, obviously suffering from a mental aberration – temporary or permanent, who can say?

    He simply refuses to believe that you cannot reverse the laws of Nature at will.

    Typical of the delusional climate crackpots who believe that adding more CO2 to a sample of air will make it hotter! These dingalings are in need of “enhanced re-education”. Bindidon can no doubt supply a list of suggested methods – ranging from infecting with deadly diseases, administering electric shocks, whacking around the ears with riding crops, and so on.

    • bobdroege says:

      you just can’t admit you made a mistake

      • Swenson says:

        b,

        Dimwit. You wrote –

        “I was responding to you claiming water wouldnt absorb photons from ice, not that those photons would increase the temperature of the ice, dumbass.”

        Why would you think that the photons emitted from ice would raise the temperature of the ice? What mental perturbation would lead you to think that I would say such a stupid thing? It is easy to see why you find yourself unable to quote the words I used, instead preferring the contents of your cesspool fantasies.

        Now tell everyone, peabrain, when the water “absorbs” the photons emitted by ice, what happens to the water temperature? Gets hotter? No? No effect at all? What about the ice, then? No change at all?

        Maybe you could say that the ice is emitting elephants, which are absorbed by the water! After all, if nothing changes, why not? Who could prove you wrong?

        So tell everyone – if you claim something happens, but that it has no effect at all, why does that not make you an idiot?

        • bobdroege says:

          Hey moron,

          “Why would you think that the photons emitted from ice would raise the temperature of the ice?”

          I didn’t say that.

          “Now tell everyone, peabrain, when the water absorbs the photons emitted by ice, what happens to the water temperature? Gets hotter? No? No effect at all? What about the ice, then? No change at all?”

          It depends, you have to look at the whole system to see what is heating or cooling what.

          Listen dumbass, if you say all matter above zero emits radiation, that also means all matter absorbs radiation.

          I’ll let you try and figure that out.

          Not looking hopeful though, more insults from a moron please.

          • Swenson says:

            b,

            I asked “Now tell everyone, peabrain, when the water absorbs the photons emitted by ice, what happens to the water temperature?”

            You wrote –

            “It depends, you have to look at the whole system to see what is heating or cooling what.”, thereby reinforcing the fact that you are completely clueless, and just trying to worm your way out of looking like a complete idiot.

            It doesn’t “depend” at all. The temperature of water will not increase, regardless of how much radiation from ice you provide. I’d ask you to get that through your thick skull, but your miniscule peabrain is apparently in full reality-rejection mode.

            You carried on your with your folly, writing –

            “Listen dumbass, if you say all matter above zero emits radiation, that also means all matter absorbs radiation.”

            Don’t be stupid. The two are not connected in any useful way. As a trivial example, visible light passes through ordinary window glass without noticeable interaction. That’s the phenomenon of transparency.

            So you are just hammering home the fact that you are are a clueless dimwit. All matter can absorb radiation – it depends on the matter and the radiation.

            So keep hammering that keyboard. Tell me when you have managed to heat water using ice – in reality, rather than fantasy.

          • bobdroege says:

            Swenson,

            In the arctic the older sea ice melts at 32 F, while the sea water floating on it is 28 F. Because as the sea ice ages, the salt is slowly removed by melting and freezing cycles. Until it is essentially salt free ice, which melts at 32 F.

            I know this because I have measured the temperature of sea water under the Arctic ice cap.

            So what you are saying is ice at 32 F can’t warm water at 28 F?

  51. Ken says:

    For all you climate alarmists that believe the computer model projections:

    The answer to the question of life the universe and everything was calculated by a computer and was found to be 42.

    42 base 2 = l0l0l0.

    That pretty much says it all.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      ken…”42 base 2 = l0l0l0″.

      ***

      I’m so buzzed I had to work it out by hand.

      Basically, a decimal to binary conversion is 2^n.

      ie. 2^2 = 4, 2^3 = 8, 2^4 = 18 and 2^5 = 32.

      42 decimal = 32 + 8 + 2

      32 = 0100000
      8 = 0001000
      2 = 0000010
      ————
      42 = 101010 …without leading zeros.

    • RLH says:

      That depends of if you are counting in numbers starting a 0 or 1. It could just as easily be be 43.

  52. Gordon Robertson says:

    clint r…from mark…”Take an old-fashioned vacuum tube. Put a finger on the surface of the vacuum tube. Run a large enough current through the filament of the tube so that it just begins to glow red. You will be able to feel the temperature of the glass envelope increase. Since there is no air in the tube, it is only the photons emitted by the filament that warm the envelope.

    ***

    You don’t need to add current to get the filament glowing red, it always glows red. The red colour comes from the glowing heater element, a tungsten filament that needs to be electrically heated till it glows red in order to boil electrons off the surface. The electrons form a cloud around the filament and are attracted by a high positive potential on the anode.

    BTW…this is proof that the convention used in electrical engineering classes is bs. They claim electrical current moves from positive to negative, in which case, ‘something’ would need to move from the positive anode to the negative cathode/heater element. It is obvious in a vacuum tube that it is electrons moving from negative to positive that cause current flow.

    However, that heater filament has to be electrically connected to the outside world via pins in the tube base. These pins pass through the glass and are in direct contact with it. The tube glass connects to the same base hence any transfer of heat from filament to base also heats the glass via conduction. The output of the tube at the anode must also pass through the base, adding heat via conduction to the glass.

    The reason I don’t think EM is a factor in heating the glass is that the heater filament is surrounded by metal mesh grids and a solid metal anode cylinder. EM will not pass through metal.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      btw…there can be enough heat generated from the filament and the anode current to destroy the tube socket into which the tube is inserted. This happens only in power vacuum tubes, even though smaller tubes get so hot you cannot remove them without burning your fingers. Again, that heat comes from conduction through the base of the tube where the pins contact the glass.

      The sockets have pin receptacles that are mounted in a bakelite base which is an insulator with a fairly high heat threshold. I have seen it burnt in power tube sockets to the point it was brittle, cracked, and discoloured. Some sockets are made of a ceramic material to better stand the heat.

      I have seen glass so hot it bubbled. I have also seen the metal cylinder anode of tubes glowing red from the bombardment of electrons in the cathode-to-anode current.

  53. TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

    Exxon warns investors of climate risk to its oil and gas assets

    Exxon Mobil, the nation’s largest oil company, for the first time on Wednesday warned investors that it may have to write down the value of its oil and gas assets because of climate change.
    […]
    It’s a remarkable admission of climate change risks from one of the most recalcitrant oil giants, which has long told investors that the world’s growing population will fuel an insatiable thirst for fossil fuels and dismissing growing concerns about climate change.
    […]
    Exxon appears to be taking climate risks more seriously as the oil industry faces mounting pressure from governments, corporations and the public to change course to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. The acknowledgment of climate risks comes after Exxon and its peers faced unprecedented challenges to oil’s supremacy over the past two years.
    […]
    “The Corporation views climate change risks as a global issue that requires collaboration among governments, private companies, consumers and other stakeholders to create meaningful solutions,” Exxon wrote in its filing. “These should meet the world’s increasing demand for affordable and reliable energy while creating opportunities to transition to a lower-carbon emissions future.”

    • Swenson says:

      TM,

      Yes, the climate has been changing ever since the atmosphere existed.

      Are you sure that Exxon is the only company that has realised this?

      Don’t other companies realise that Nature is risky by nature? You know, floods, droughts, heatwaves, cold snaps – all parts of weather – the statistics of which we call “climate”.

      Got any more stupid and irrelevant comments?

      • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

        Swenson at 3:47 AM

        “Are you sure that Exxon is the only company that has realised this?”

        So, where id I say that?

        Your reading comprehension gets worse with each passing day!

  54. “Christos, you claim that planet rotation is responsible for the earths 33 C temperature rise, and the planet should be at 255 K, but its actually at 288 K.”
    I never claimed that!

    What I have discovered is a Planet mean surface temperature equation:
    Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
    The equation precisely calculates all planets and moons without-atmosphere in solar system the average (mean) surface temperatures.
    For planet Earth without-atmosphere the calculated mean surface temperature is
    Tmean.earth=288K

    The planet blackbody equation (effective temperature):
    Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]∕ ⁴
    is a mathematical abstraction.
    The number it calculates for earth’s effective temperature
    Te=255K
    is meaningless. The Te=255K cannot be compared with Earth’s actual mean surface temperature, because one cannot compare two different terms – a planet actual mean surface temperature Tmean.earth=288K with a mathematical abstraction Te=255K.

    What I claim is that there is not +33oC greenhouse effect on Earth’s surface.
    The difference of +33oC does not exist in the real world.
    The Planet mean surface temperature equation:
    Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)∕ ⁴ /4σ ]∕ ⁴
    is based on the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law, but it is also based on the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.

    Earth’s surface on average is much warmer than Moon’s. Yes, it is true. And the difference is due to Earth’s 29,53 higher rotational than Moon’s spin. Also Earth is covered with water, and where it is not covered with water it is wet (forests, glaciers, fields with crops, lands after rain, and vast snow covered areas).
    Thus Earth’s cp =1 cal/gr.oC
    Moon’s surface is dry regolith. Thus Moon’s cp =0,19cal/gr.oC.
    Earth’s cp is five (5) times higher.
    That is why earth’s mean surface temperature is Tmean.earth=288K
    And Moon’s is
    Tmean.moon=220K.
    The difference 288K-220K=68oC is due to “Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon”.
    It states:
    Planets’ mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products’ sixteenth root.

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • Ball4 says:

      “The difference of +33oC does not exist in the real world.”

      That’s calculated wrongly by Christos because it ignores the optics of earthen atm. Measured for Earth, rounded:

      Tse – Ts = 33K

      Measured for Mars, rounded:

      Tse – Ts = 5K

      Measured for Venus, rounded:

      Tse – Ts = 500K

      All GHEs can be properly calculated by text book 1LOT formula once their atmosphere optical properties are properly included. Dr. Spencer has shown Christos how to properly calculate the planetary rotational warming effect.

      • Clint R says:

        The “33K” results from comparing REAL Earth to an imaginary sphere.

        That ain’t science.

        • Ball4 says:

          Nope, that’s where you are wrong Clint. The 33K is instrumentally measured on the actual Earth system along with the actual other planets. Nothing in the measurements is imaginary except in the mind of Clint R.

          Calculations confirm the measurements which is good science of which Clint R isn’t aware.

          • Clint R says:

            Yeah braindead4, I know you can chant your nonsense endlessly, but we still haven’t seen the surface:

            “Sure I can identify a surface where 255K is instrumentally measured…”

            To start earning come credibility, you need to live up to what you claim.

          • Willard says:

            Hey, Pup —

            Congratulations on being the comment leader with pure trolling!

            If you could stop, that’d be great.

          • Ball4 says:

            I did live up to the claim by providing the source data measured at the obvious 255K surface Clint. You can do better, study helps to keep up with the facts.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Ball4 keeps confirming that the Earth is measured to be the temperature it is calculated to be – 255 K. So there’s no 33 K GHE. Thanks Ball4.

          • Clint R says:

            Yes Dud, the truth is getting out. Reality always wins. That scares you, huh?

            And braindead4 demonstrates once again he can’t provide his surface. No surprise.

            He just continues his chant and dance. Maybe he’s doing your pole dance for you? You two dance so well together.

          • Willard says:

            > the truth is getting out

            Right on, Pup:

            And the difference is due to Earth’s 29,53 higher rotational than Moon’s spin.

            Moon Dragon cranks should have a word with Christos.

          • Ball4 says:

            DREMT 11:34am, you are wrong, earthen GHE is Tse – Te = 288K – 255K = 33K, rounded & all measured instrumentally with surface data identified & made available to Clint R. Of course, Clint R isn’t educated enough in this field to understand the location of the 255K surface where that data was measured.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I will keep it as simple as possible.

            You have three values:

            1) The measured surface temperature of 288 K.
            2) The measured temperature of the Earth plus atmosphere, as seen from space, of 255 K.
            3) The calculated effective temperature of Earth, 255 K.

            Why are you comparing either 1) with 2), to get 33 K, or 1) with 3), to get 33 K?

            Why not compare 2) with 3), to get 0 K?

            Why would the difference between 1) and 2) automatically be due to a GHE?

            Why compare 1) and 3) when there is nothing in the effective temperature calculations to relate it to the physical surface of the Earth? You could just as easily argue that you should compare 2) with 3), instead.

            If your answer to any of these questions involves GHGs "raising the effective radiating level of the atmosphere from the ground surface (with no GHGs) to higher in the atmosphere (with GHGs)" then why is an albedo of 0.3 used in the calculations, when that value for albedo incorporates cloud cover? No GHGs, no water vapor, means no clouds, means the value for albedo should be lower. Which means the value for 3) should be higher.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            DREMT,

            B4 is like any leftist. They believe if they repeat a lie often enough that then enough people will believe it. Hell, he even believes it. It’s called pathological.

          • Ball4 says:

            DREMT, there is also 4) the textbook 1LOT formula calculated effective surface temperature of Earth, 288K.

            So, for GHE can compare 3) and 4) or 1) and 2).

            When calculating 3), the albedo would be for a cooler surface temperature 255K so drier less humid air, with more ice cover balancing each other off for no material change to albedo – to just match measured 2).

            Those 12:35 pm are actually good questions.

          • Clint R says:

            Braindead4 can’t identify the 255K surface, so he imagines more nonsense. His 4) is as bogus as his 3). If he backed up and admitted there wasn’t really such a surface, that it was an imaginary layer in the atmosphere, then he would have to state the altitude of that “layer”. Of course, he can’t do that either.

            He has NOTHING except his tangled, non-sensical blah-blah.

            That’s why this is so much fun.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Stephen, Ball4 does not like to answer questions, as we can see. He avoided most of them, and what he did answer with is mostly nonsensical, and just raises more questions.

            Without GHGs, you do not have clouds, so the albedo would not be 0.3. If the albedo was more like the moon, about 0.1, then the calculated effective temperature of Earth would be 274.5 K or 1.35 C. With a typical ocean albedo being about 0.06, you could argue that the Earth would be slightly warmer than the 274.5 K. Either way it’s not going to be a snowball Earth scenario.

            The 33 K is definitely wrong. That needs to be understood first of all.

          • Willard says:

            Kiddo keeps on with his new pet line (“but surface”) without understanding any of this.

            Having become the comment leader, Pup keeps trolling, oblivious to the fact that he’s saying NOTHING.

            Denying and lulzing, Mike Flynn mikeflynns.

            Gordo sticks to the same war stories.

            Meanwhile, the world moves on:

            Knowledge of factors that trigger human response to climate change is crucial for effective climate change policy communication. Climate change has been claimed to have low salience as a risk issue because it cannot be directly experienced. Still, personal factors such as strength of belief in local effects of climate change have been shown to correlate strongly with responses to climate change and there is a growing literature on the hypothesis that personal experience of climate change (and/or its effects) explains responses to climate change. Here we provide, using survey data from 845 private forest owners operating in a wide range of bio-climatic as well as economic-social-political structures in a latitudinal gradient across Europe, the first evidence that the personal strength of belief and perception of local effects of climate change, highly significantly explain human responses to climate change. A logistic regression model was fitted to the two variables, estimating expected probabilities ranging from 0.07 (SD 0.01) to 0.81 (SD 0.03) for self-reported adaptive measures taken. Adding socio-demographic variables improved the fit, estimating expected probabilities ranging from 0.022 (SD 0.008) to 0.91 (SD 0.02). We conclude that to explain and predict adaptation to climate change, the combination of personal experience and belief must be considered.

            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3504002/

            As long as they keep to their keyboards, all is well for our Dragon cranks.

          • Swenson says:

            Wee Willy Idiot,

            You do realise that climate is just the statistics of past weather, don’t you?

            Only dull-witted climate cranks seem to think that they can “stop climate change”, or other silly memes. It doesn’t matter what people think of the weather (or weather’s statistics, climate), because they can do precisely bugger all about it.

            The response to expected weather is pretty simple – if you think it will rain, take an umbrella.

            Idiots who write papers of the sort you link to, obviously have no real research to keep them occupied. Just more bumbling buffoons trying to be noticed – just like you.

            Why don’t you just poke yourself in the eye with a hot needle, and whine loudly “It hurts, it hurts!”? I would certainly laugh at your stupidity (for a little while, of course).

            Give it a try.

            Oh, by the way, SkyDragons are delusional twits who believe that adding CO2 to the atmosphere, makes the Earth hotter! Stupid, aren’t they? Just like you.

          • Willard says:

            Mike Flynn,

            Monosyllabic Furor,

            Nobody ever gave a truck about your silly tough guy act.

            Earlier you played dumb about being Mike Flynn.

            You still are peddling that molten rock crap.

            You are now second behind Pup who’s the comment leader.

            Joy! Joy! Joy!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The 33 K is definitely wrong. That needs to be understood, first of all.

          • Nate says:

            Roy Spencer, of course, as a Meteorology PhD, and skeptic, has made it absolutely clear that the GHE is very real. And that its increase with increasing CO2 is very real.

            GHE deniers like you guys are giving scientifically literate climate skeptics, like Roy Spencer, a bad name.

            Very unhelpful to your cause… Good job!

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The 33 K is definitely wrong. That needs to be understood, first of all…

          • Ball4 says:

            “Without GHGs, you do not have clouds…”

            That is definitely wrong and needs to be understood first of all: clouds (liquid or frozen water) are not greenhouse gases (GHGs) DREMT.

            First of all understand this:

            Earthen Tse – Te = 288K – 255K = 33K

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No GHGs means no water vapor, Ball4, and no water vapor means no clouds.

          • Ball4 says:

            No liquid or frozen water means no clouds DREMT, not no water vapor. Read up on cloud properties.

            First, though, understand this:

            Earthen Tse – Te = 288K – 255K = 33K

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            https://www.weather.gov/source/zhu/ZHU_Training_Page/clouds/cloud_development/clouds.htm

            “Clouds are formed when air contains as much water vapor (gas) as it can hold.”

          • Ball4 says:

            Nice to see you studying & learning some basic meteorology, DREMT, per your source: “On Planet Earth, naturally occurring clouds are composed primarily of water in its liquid or solid state” not water vapor. Condensation eliminates water vapor, a GHG.

            Now, more learning, understand this:

            Earthen Tse – Te = 288K – 255K = 33K

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yes, Ball4, I am more than aware that clouds are composed of water in its liquid or solid state. However, they cannot form without water vapor. No GHGs = no water vapor = no clouds.

          • Ball4 says:

            DREMT, when the earthen water droplet clouds are formed condensation eliminates a GHG: water vapor. The clouds are still there, not gone, the water vapor GHG is gone.

            Now, more learning, understand this:

            Earthen Tse – Te = 288K – 255K = 33K

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            If you are comparing the calculated temperature of an imaginary Earth without GHGs (1) to the actual surface temperature of the Earth with GHGs (2), then (1) cannot be 255 K, because the calculations resulting in 255 K use an albedo of 0.3, which includes cloud cover. No GHGs, no water vapor, and hence no clouds can form.

          • Ball4 says:

            I’m not “comparing the calculated temperature of an imaginary Earth without GHGs”.

            I’m using the instrumentally measured actual Earth system to obtain both Tse and Te. DREMT just needs to learn some basic meteorology. Libraries are good sources for that along with passing a beginners course in the subject.

            Earthen Tse – Te = 288K – 255K = 33K

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            "I’m using the instrumentally measured actual Earth system to obtain both Tse and Te."

            I know you are, we discussed that already. However, most people think of the 33 K as being the difference between a calculated theoretical temperature without GHGs and the measured surface temperature with GHGs, hence they think "the Earth’s surface would be 33 K cooler if it weren’t for GHGs".

      • Ball4,

        Here is a clear example:
        Mars is irradiated 2,32times weaker than Moon, but Mars rotates 28,783 times faster.
        And for the same albedo, Mars and Moon would have the same satellite measured mean temperatures.
        For Moon Tmean = 220K Moons Albedo a=0,11
        For Mars Tmean= 210K Mars Albedo a=0,25

        Moon is at R = 1 AU distance from the sun and the solar flux on the top is So = 1.361 W/m ( it is called the Solar constant).
        Mars is at 1,524 AU distance from the sun and the solar flux on the top is S = So*(1/R) = So*(1/1,524) = So*1/2,32 .
        S = 1.361 W/m /2,32 = 587 W/m.

        It is very much obvious the Mars’ fast rotation makes Mars’ average surface (mean) temperature almost the same as Moon’s.

        On Moon solar flux is 1.361 W/m
        On Mars solar flux is 587 W/m
        Nevertheless
        Tmean.moon = 220K
        Tmean.mars = 210 K

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • The method I use is the Planet Temperatures Comparison.
        The mathematic abstraction formula
        (1-a)S /4
        gives for Earth average=240 W/m
        for Moon average
        (1-0,11)1.361 /4 = 303 W/m (it is almost 3 times higher than for Mars)
        for Mars average
        (1-0,25)587 /4 = 110 W/m

        On Mars: “The resulting mean surface pressure is only 0.6% of that of Earth 101.3 kPa (14.69 psi).” (From Wikipedia)

        What I think, is that Mars’ less than 1% of Earth’s atmosphere is not capable to absorb and then back to surface radiate almost twice the amount of solar flux hitting Mars’ surface.

        It is the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon which does the work.

        Like-wise it happens on Earth too. Only Venus has strong greenhouse effect. Earth, compared to Venus has a very thin atmosphere…

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

        • Ball4 says:

          “It is the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon which does the work.”

          Then use Dr. Spencer’s work to show your case has legs for Mars. It won’t because the avg. temperature is different than equilibrium temperature that the 1LOT calculations compute in Tse – Te = GHE.

          Venus has slow retrograde rotation so you have to use 1LOT to compute equilibrium temperatures though its atm.

    • Craig T says:

      Christos Vournas says:
      “And the difference is due to Earth’s 29,53 higher rotational than Moon’s spin.”

      I’m just glad to see Christos say that the Moon has rotational spin.

      • stephen p anderson says:

        It does relative to the Sun.

      • Bindidon says:

        Craig T

        Exactly.

        If you move up in Roy Spencer’s threads until,Vournas’ first post, you see that he is perfectly aware of Moon’s spin about its polar axis.

        But then, Vournas detected that Robertson, while 100 % supporting his ‘no GHG’ ideas, was very unsatisfied with his Moon spin attitude.

        And it didn’t take long time to see that suddenly, Vournas discourse about Moon’s spin changed by 180 degrees.

      • Bindidon says:

        And I should add I’m convinced that Vournas perfectly understands that like Earth’s, Moon’s spin is independent of the point in space from which it is observed. Its relative duration of course may differ.

        If you look at Earth from Mars or Jupiter, you very certainly will observe different behavior for its motions.

        But having a star as an absolute reference point in space will solve your problem.

        • stephen p anderson says:

          It has the appearance of not spinning as viewed by the Earth. Much like riding down an elevator.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          …and from an inertial reference frame, Mt. Everest has the appearance of rotating on its own axis. Is Mt. Everest rotating on its own axis? If you answer “no”, then you agree that using an inertial reference frame can lead you to the wrong conclusions about axial rotation.

          If you answer “yes”, then…good luck to you.

          • bobdroege says:

            You got the cart before the horse there boy

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            …said the guy who thinks Mt. Everest is rotating on its own axis.

          • Ball4 says:

            Depends on wrt to what other object, ALL motion is relative.

          • bobdroege says:

            Says the guy who didn’t read the caption below the moon on the left moon on the right gif, that says the moon on the right is not rotating on is axis, and the moon on the left is rotating on its axis in about the same time it takes to orbit.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Ball4, your fundamental problem is you do not understand rotation…and you are a relentless, sociopathic troll.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Fully aware of what they say about the GIF, bob. That’s based on the sort of retarded thinking that ends with you believing that Mt. Everest is rotating on its own axis.

          • bobdroege says:

            DREMPTY,

            So the guys who posted the gif you base your argument on are retards?

            That’s good to know.

            You base your arguments on the work of retards.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            It’s just a gif of two motions, bob. There is nothing wrong with the gif itself, so I use it. You seem to be getting quite desperate.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          binny…”Moons spin is independent of the point in space from which it is observed”.

          ***

          Why is it you understand that but you cannot understand that no angular momentum or torque exists to cause the Moon to rotate about a local axis? I proved it cannot rotate using basic calculus yet your heroes like Mayer, Lagrange, and Laplace could not see that using the same basic calculus?

          All parts of the Moon are moving in concentric orbits, a prerequisite of having the same face always pointed to the Earth. Why could none of them see that truth?

          • Craig T says:

            “All parts of the Moon are moving in concentric orbits, a prerequisite of having the same face always pointed to the Earth. Why could none of them see that truth?”

            Because those “concentric orbits” are at a 6.6 degree angle to the Moon’s orbital plane.

          • Bindidon says:

            Robertson

            I repeat Craig T’s sentence extra for the dumb ignoramus:

            You should deeply research how astronomers and quantum physicists have reached their conclusions before rejecting them by gut instinct.

            +
            ” Why is it you understand that but you cannot understand that no angular momentum or torque exists to cause the Moon to rotate about a local axis? ”

            Moon’s spin was born in the very same moment it was created.

            ” I proved it cannot rotate using basic calculus yet your heroes like Mayer, Lagrange, and Laplace could not see that using the same basic calculus? ”

            Unlike you, these ‘heroes’ experienced an extremely deep education. You ignore all what they learned.

            And you do not want to learn anything.

            You are at least as arrogant as ignorant and stubborn.

          • Clint R says:

            Braindead-idon claims: “Moon’s spin was born in the very same moment it was created.”

            Got any video of that?

            The reality is, if Moon ever had any axial rotation, it would still have it. That means, we would see different sides of it from Earth. The fact that it is NOT rotating about its Center of Mass tells us it NEVER rotated.

          • RLH says:

            “if Moon ever had any axial rotation, it would still have it”

            Except that tidal locking caused by millennia says otherwise

  55. Michael Fitzgerald says:

    Does this mean the Vostok ice cores are a lie?

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      michael…”Does this mean the Vostok ice cores are a lie?”

      ***

      Don’t now about Vostok but Jaworowski proved rather convincingly that the so-called trapped CO2 bubbles in ice are unreliable for predicting age.

      As the ice pressure increases with depth, the bubbles convert to solids called clathrates. Jaworowski claimed, that no matter how carefully they treat the ice, when it is extracted into a lower pressure region at the surface, the change in pressure, and heat from the drilling, produces water which dilutes the clathrates before they can convert back to gas.

      Furthermore, similar studies in Antarctica have shown vastly different concentrations of CO2 over a couple of hundred miles. The concentrations range from the IPCC favourite of 260 ppmv to over 2000 ppmv. It appears like the IPCC cherry picked the value best suited to their cockamamey theory that CO2 has caused warming since 1850.

      Completely missed the obvious, that 1850 marked the end of the Little Ice Age in which global temps dropped 1C to 2C below average. The IPCC are in denial that the world has re-warmed due to LIA cooling.

  56. TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

    Hubris, thy name is Gordon Robertson 8:13 PM

    “Newton II, f = ma, is not a differential equation, never mind a 2nd order DE.”
    And yet, behold the Navier-Stokes equation.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      maguff…”Newton II, f = ma, is not a differential equation, never mind a 2nd order DE.
      And yet, behold the Navier-Stokes equation.”

      ***

      Where in that article does it claim f = ma is a differential equation? As I told you, Newton II can be employed in a DE to indicate a mass being accelerated. In the example I gave for the vertical mass-spring system, it is written as:

      my” + kx = 0 which can be written as my” = -kx.

      The equation tells us that at each INSTANT the mass is being accelerated by gravity while the spring is pulling in the opposite direction as -kx.

      This equation represents an INSTANTANEOUS condition but f = ma is does necessarily have to be applied as such. With f = ma, if a force and mass are specified, and the force is capable of moving the mass, then we can tell how the mass is changing position over time. The equation is in its integrated form.

      With my” + kx = 0, we have to find a solution using integration that involves sine and cosine functions. In other words, f = ma represents a straight-line acceleration but my” + kx = 0 represents simple harmonic motion with a sine or cosine wave function.

      I have omitted some of the mass-spring DE for sake of simplicity. Obviously, a mass-spring oscillating with air resistance will not sustain a sine wave with constant amplitude. The wave amplitude will decay, a phenomenon known as damping. The degree of damping is dependent on the stiffness of the spring as well as the mass.

      You could apply Newton II as an instantaneous rate of change as f = mx” = mdv/dt = md2x/dt^2. Then, you would have to integrate the equation between between range limits, presuming the force and mass remained constant.

      There is a form of acceleration used in engineering called a ‘jerk’ factor. It is the change of acceleration which can be experience as we accelerate smoothly from a stopped position in a car, then hammer on the gas.

      The point is that f = ma is normally applied to a macro condition in engineering problems without integration, provided the mass is being accelerated in a straight line. If that was not the case, then Newton II would have to be written as f = m (integral)d2x/dt2 with prescribed limits of integration.

      What’s the point of that when d2x/dx^2 is already defined as ‘a’? In any engineering problem I encountered, we were given the acceleration or required to calculate it using related equations. No integration required.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        type…”but f = ma is does necessarily have to be applied as such”.

        should read..

        “but f = ma is does NOT necessarily have to be applied as such”.

      • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

        Gordon Robertson at 6:37 PM

        “Where in that article does it claim f = ma is a differential equation?”

        You are just clueless!

        calculate the differential equation of an object, m, with force, F, and acceleration, a.

        Navier-Stokes equations are derived and explained conceptually using Newton’s Second Law (F = ma)

        • Swenson says:

          TM,

          And you still haven’t indicated where in the article f = ma is a differential equation, have you?

          Blathering about Navier-Stokes, or any number of other things that are irrelevant, just makes you look like a dedicated climate nutter, trying to make reality go away.

          Here – do you really think that you can convince anyone except another nutter that 6 = 2 x 3 is a differential,equation? Give it a try. See how it works out for you.

          • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

            You obviously wouldn’t recognize a differential equation if it jump up and bit you.

          • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

            You obviously wouldnt recognize a differential equation if it jumped up and bit you.

            Corrected before you get your panties in a bunch.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          maguff…”You are just clueless!”

          ***

          Look, dumbo, try talking about something you understand rather than surfing the Net trying to find examples you THINK fit your stupid claims.

          Again…in the form f = ma, that equation IS NOT A DIFFERENTIAL EQUATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The speaker at your link has converted it into differential form.

          He explained what he has done, he converted ‘a’ to its differential form, a = dv/dt. He then wrote the equation f = ma as f = mdv/dt, then he claimed it was in it differential form. Ergo, written as f = ma, the equation is NOT in the differential form.

          f = ma = mx” if the force acts along the x-axis. x” can be written as d(dv/dt)/dt = d2x/dt2 = the second derivative wrt time of the x-position of the mass.

          Only when the equation is expressed in differential form can it be claimed to be a differential equation. How stupid can you be to fail to understand that?

          f = ma is not in differential form!!!!!!!!!!!!

          You fail to understand what a differential is or what it means. A differential is an INSTANTANEOUS change of a function wrt time, or whatever it is changing against. It is often expressed using the operator ‘d’, as in dy/dt. That differential means the infinitesimal change in y wrt to t. It could be written as dy/dx, which means the infinitesimal change in y wrt x.

          If you don’t see the differential operator in an equation IT IS NOT A DIFFERENTIAL EQUATION!!!!!!!!!

          I even went as far to explain to you the difference between f = ma, which acts in a linear direction as opposed to the usage of f = mg, affecting the acceleration of a mass held vertically on a spring. and used in a differential equation in the form:

          my” + kx = 0

          This means force 1 + force 2 = 0. One force is the force of gravity acting vertically downward while f2 is the force exerted by the spring vertically upward.

          The solution to the above DE, although operating in a straight vertical line, is vastly different than the solution for f = mg = my”, for a mass falling without being attached to a spring.

          In fact, you don’t have to solve a differential equation for mg because WE ALREADY KNOW THE VALUE IS 9.8 m/s^2.

          Even with ma as in f = ma, we don’t have to solve a differential equation because we already have solutions based on the relationship between s = distance, f = mass, f = force, and a = acceleration.

          Differential equations are only useful and/or required when there are unknowns.

          You are obviously an idiot who knows nothing about differential equations.

          • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

            No need for personal attacks GR. I’m trying to help you here.

          • Clint R says:

            TM, labeling you an “idiot” is not a personal attack. People that reject reality are “idiots”. That’s not an insult, it’s fact.

            Gordon has spent a lot of time trying to educate you, but you can’t learn. You’re too obsessed with your cult. You reject reality.

            You’re a braindead cult idiot.

          • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

            Your contribution is duly noted Clint R.

            Have you found that Arrhenius CO2 equation yet?

          • Clint R says:

            Found it a long time ago, troll. It was YOU that had never heard of it.

            You don’t even know your own cult’s nonsense.

            You’re braindead.

          • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

            Clint R at 10:31 AM

            Well, I was hoping it wouldn’t have to come to this because it is somewhat condescending, but here it goes.

            Svante Arrhenius’s paper, On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground, April 1896, lists 4 numbered equations, of which you are convinced the Arrhenius CO2 equation is:

            (1) Eq 1
            (2) Eq 2
            (3) Eq 3
            (4) Eq 4
            (5) none of the above

            The sixth choice is obviously to divert and deflect as you’ve done so far, but that’s unbecoming for an honest person as I hope you are.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            maguff…”No need for personal attacks GR. Im trying to help you here”.

            ***

            Which part did you regard as a personal attack, the part where I called you dumbo, or the part where I had to explain the meaning of differential, as in dy/dt?

            Ho can someone be so stupid as to argue about differential equations when he has no idea what differential means?

            You trying to help me??? When you lack even a basic understanding of differential equations.

          • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

            Gordon Robertson at 5:12 PM
            You trying to help me???

            f=ma = m d^2(x)/d^2(t). Enough said!

            Newton invented (or is that, discovered) the Calculus 20 years before he published Principia. He’s said to have avoided putting calculus in Principia so as to make it easier to understand the concepts.

  57. Gordon Robertson says:

    rlh…”Orbit is word salad to describe something that occurs. It doesnt mean what it means elsewhere. Planets orbit a star which means one thing. Electrons orbit a nucleus which means something different”.

    ***

    The principle of electrons orbiting an atomic nucleus is based on planetary motion. Planets have momentum that counteract the Sun’s gravitational force and it is hypothesized that electrons have sufficient momentum to counteract the attraction of positively charged protons in the nucleus.

    Electrodynamicists argued that the electron would lose energy and spiral into the nucleus but they have never given a good reason why it should lose energy. Neither planets nor the Moon lose energy overcoming gravitational attraction so why should an electron?

    Bohr solved the problem using Planck’s proposition that atomic energy states are not continuous but exist at discrete quantum levels. He was impelled to understand the problem to explain why the hydrogen atom could only emit and absorb energy at discrete frequencies. Bohr solved this conundrum with his theory, even though it was strongly resisted in the beginning.

    Bohr proposed that electrons are confined to orbital energy levels that are discrete. To change energy levels, the electron must acquire energy or emit it. However, there is a lowest energy level, called the ground state, below which the electron cannot fall, therefore it cannot spiral into the nucleus.

    I have worked in the electronics field and in the related electrical field all of my working career. I am still not convinced that electrons orbit the nucleus as claimed. However, there is good evidence that is the case.

    For one, Schrodinger created his wave equation which predicted the probability of where an electron may be found in its orbit. His wave equation is based on Bohr’s theory that an electron is orbiting a nucleus at a certain distance. Schrodinger’s wave equation is based on the Newtonian wave equation in which an electron orbiting a nucleus would be considered as performing simple harmonic motion. As the electron orbited in a circular orbit it shadow projected onto the x-axis would describe a sine ‘wave’, with a specific frequency, over time.

    For another, Linus Pauling used Schrodinger’s wave equation, with a modification, to predict the shape of molecules. That theory is based on electrons as bonding agents between nucleii. Pauling also received a Nobel prize for his work on covalent bonds, a theory based on electrons being shared between atomic nucleii to bond nucleii together.

    It’s hard to imagine electrons being able to bond two nucleii without orbiting one or both nucleii. In fact, I know of no study since 1913 that proves otherwise. I would dearly love to understand how the electron interacts with the nucleii but thus far I am left with nothing more than an orbital explanation.

    Some theoretical physicists have made rash claims about electrons that border on sci-fi. They have claimed electrons can behave as both a particle and a wave, which I think is nonsense. The evidence for the wavelike properties is that electrons can be diverted, like EM, while being forced through a narrow slit.

    This is not evidence at all, rather the evidence points to the fact the physicists don’t understand the forces involved and have leaped to conclusions. An expert in the field, renowned physicist David Bohm, commented that there might be ‘quantum potentials’ involved but he did not specify what they were. That’s a heck of a lot more scientific than jumping to the conclusion that a particle with mass and charge can act like a wave of EM.

    The sad truth is that more than 100 years after Bohr’s theory, we are still no closer to understanding the electron in actuality. I blame that on scientists clinging to paradigms they are protecting vigorously. In many cases, they are doing that only to protect their funding. In other cases, it’s nothing more than arrogance and ego.

    • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

      I think the Gish gallop should be renamed to the Gordon Robertson gallop.

    • Craig T says:

      Gordon Robertson says: “Electrodynamicists argued that the electron would lose energy and spiral into the nucleus but they have never given a good reason why it should lose energy.”

      The reason given was that any accelerated electrical charge will emit electromagnetic radiation.

      “Schrodinger’s wave equation is based on the Newtonian wave equation in which an electron orbiting a nucleus would be considered as performing simple harmonic motion. As the electron orbited in a circular orbit it shadow projected onto the x-axis would describe a sine ‘wave’, with a specific frequency, over time.”

      Schrodinger used a wave equation because it was clear electrons didn’t follow a simple harmonic motion the way planets orbit stars. The equation only gives the probability of the location of an electron. Look at the shape of p or d orbitals to see how different orbitals are from orbits.
      https://byjus.com/chemistry/shapes-of-orbitals/

      Scientists didn’t “jump to the conclusion” of wave-particle duality. They were dragged to the conclusion because it was the only way to explain the observations made of photons and electrons.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        craig…”The reason given was that any accelerated electrical charge will emit electromagnetic radiation”.

        ***

        Electrons are particles with an electrical charge. There is no evidence they ever lose that charge, and electrodynamicists have never proved that. What would you call an electron that had lost its charge? And how would you explain the universe falling apart because the electrons had no charge to bond atomic nucleii together?

        When an electron moves, the electric charge produces a magnetic field perpendicular to the electric field. When a moving electron emits energy, it is in the form of an electric field perpendicular to a magnetic field, which is called electromagnetic energy.

        • bobdroege says:

          Who said the electron loses its charge?

          They say that an electron that is accelerated, or decelerated for that matter emits radiation, and loses energy, not charge.

    • RLH says:

      “The principle of electrons orbiting an atomic nucleus is based on planetary motion”

      Which has long been excepted as wrong. The probability of electrons being in any particular position looks nothing the same as the motion of planets around a star.

      Bohrs model of the atom has long been rejected in favor of Electron Cloud Model/Quantum Mechanics Model of Atom with many images of their distribution available.

      e.g.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics#/media/File:Hydrogen_Density_Plots.png

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        rlh…”Which has long been excepted as wrong. The probability of electrons being in any particular position looks nothing the same as the motion of planets around a star.

        Bohr’s model of the atom has long been rejected in favor of Electron Cloud Model/Quantum Mechanics Model of Atom with many images of their distribution available”.

        ***

        How many times do you have to be warned that any idiot can post an entry to Wikipedia and that the editors enforce certain paradigms? There is useful information on Wiki but you had better be aware that a lot of it is junk science.

        The reason the electron’s probable position is inferred is that no instrument can determine its exact path. Any attempt to locate and measure an electron would dislodge it from its path by drawing energy from the electron.

        I noted that the Bohr model is a theory but it has been corroborated by Schrodinger’s wave equation for hydrogen. Modern chemistry is still based on Bohr’s theory and additions to it to account for atoms with multiple electron orbits.

        Bohr’s model IS THE QUANTUM MODEL!!!! It was Bohr who postulated that electrons MUST orbit in quantum orbital energy levels, and Schrodinger worked that out mathematically for hydrogen. Linus Pauling applied Schrodinger’s wave equation to identify a scad of molecular shapes, however, he also had scads of experience identifying probable shapes using x-ray diffraction.

        The electron cloud model is an extension of the Bohr model. The electron clouds are not clouds of electrons but a cloud of probabilities of the likelihood of finding an electron in that cloud space. Somewhere in that cloud, the electron is theorized to be orbiting.

        I am not convinced of the reality of the Bohr model and Bohr did not present the model as an emulation of the solar system. Any relationship is coincidental, even though there are parallels like attraction to a nucleus and momentum. Bohr and Rutherford were researching a possible relationship between the electron and the protons in the nucleus but it was Bohr who came up with the quantum model based on Planck’s quantum theory of electromagnetic radiation.

        As I explained, Bohr was trying to explain why hydrogen emitted and absorbed EM at discrete frequencies. His theory led to the correct conclusion that electrons absorb and emit the EM as they move between orbital energy levels. If you can explain that without the use of electron orbitals, I’d like to hear it.

        Here’s a Wiki article contradicting what you claimed above. This is about the Lyman series of hydrogen emissions in the UV range.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyman_series

        • RLH says:

          “Modern chemistry is still based on Bohrs theory”

          No it isn’t. I have Chemistry Heads of Departments who agree with me.

          The presence or absence of electrons decides chemical attractions and reactions, not the ‘orbits’ they do or do not follow round a nucleus.

        • RLH says:

          “If you can explain that without the use of electron orbitals, Id like to hear it”

          Orbitals are not the same as orbits as you have already been told.

    • Tim Folkerts says:

      1st Paragraph: “The principle of electrons orbiting an atomic nucleus is based on planetary motion.”
      Only as an analogy.

      “and it is hypothesized that electrons have sufficient momentum to counteract the attraction of positively charged protons in the nucleus.”
      Except the s-orbitals have no angular momentum. they are not “orbiting”. So it is NOT really like planets or moons.

      2nd Paragraph: ” they have never given a good reason why it should lose energy. “
      Sure ‘they’ do. Accelerating charges create EM fields that carry away energy. Electrons accelerating up and down an antenna create radio waves that carry energy to your radio. Electron’s accelerating in a circle should also send out EM waves. This is simple, standard, well-known physics.

      You can’t get through the first 2 paragraphs without major misunderstandings. Maybe if you figure out these two things, you can move on to the many otehr misunderstandings in later paragraphs.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        tim…”Accelerating charges create EM fields that carry away energy. Electrons accelerating up and down an antenna create radio waves that carry energy to your radio. Electrons accelerating in a circle should also send out EM waves. This is simple, standard, well-known physics”.

        ***

        Your reference to my misunderstandings comes from your arrogance.

        My point was that, after producing the EM field, no one has proved the electrons lose their charge, or their magnetic field produced when moving. What is charge and how is it related to the electron as a particle?

        Do you think the electrons lose their charge and end up as neutral particles in the antenna metal? There is no proof that electrons orbiting a positively charged nucleus would lose their charge. They don’t lose charge when they fall from one orbital energy level to another, they emit EM, losing kinetic energy, but not charge.

        If you have two charged BODIES at a distance, and you bring them together, the charges will neutralize each other. But what if you have a unit -ve charge at a distance from a unit +ve charge and you bring them together? What if you bring an electron into contact with a proton?

        You will find incoherent arguments about that possibility since it involves theory related to sub-atomic particles. One explanation I read claimed electrons and protons cannot merge due to strong nuclear forces. In other words, if an electron approaches a proton, it will likely go into orbit around it to form a hydrogen atom.

        • Tim Folkerts says:

          “no one has proved the electrons lose their charge”
          What?!? No one has ‘proved’ that because theory and experiment show the opposite! People have ‘proved’ electrons always have a charge -e.

          “What is charge ..?”
          That is a philosophical question. Like “what is mass” or “what is energy”. The answer could be “they are fundamental properties of the universe” or perhaps “these are human constructs that we use to make sense of the universe.”

          “What if you bring an electron into contact with a proton?”
          Many things could happen, depending on the energies of the particles. People have literally been studying this for decades. There is lots of literature on the topic. They could form a H atom, or form a neutron + neutrino, or any number of other more exotic results.

        • Craig T says:

          “If you have two charged BODIES at a distance, and you bring them together, the charges will neutralize each other.”

          Those bodies have a negative charge if they carry more electrons than protons and positive if fewer electrons. They neutralize by exchanging electrons. Electrons always have a -1 charge.

          “Modern chemistry is still based on Bohr’s theory and additions to it to account for atoms with multiple electron orbits.”

          Bohr did show the direction for finding how electrons move in an atom. but the image of electrons moving like planets was soon rejected. Electron S orbital shells are spherical but the p, d and f orbitals are complex shapes that no object in space could ever follow.
          https://chem.libretexts.org/Courses/Athabasca_University/Chemistry_350%3A_Organic_Chemistry_I/01%3A_Structure_and_Bonding/1.03%3A_Atomic_Structure-_Orbitals

        • bobdroege says:

          Gee Gordon, there is a lot you don’t know.

          “One explanation I read claimed electrons and protons cannot merge due to strong nuclear forces. In other words, if an electron approaches a proton, it will likely go into orbit around it to form a hydrogen atom.”

          You need to find better reading material.

          “Neutron stars are formed when a massive star runs out of fuel and collapses. The very central region of the star the core collapses, crushing together every proton and electron into a neutron.”

  58. Gordon Robertson says:

    stephen…”Christos has always said the Moon spins on its axis, its on his website”.

    ***

    I have not read what Christos claims but I know he is intelligent and he is a mechanical engineer. He will understand the following:

    With the Earth located at 0,0 on an x-y plane, locate the Moon at 5,0 along the x-axis. Draw a radial line from 0,0 at Earth’s centre through the Moon’s centre at 5,0, extending out the other side of the Moon.

    Presume the Moon has a diameter from x = 4 to x = 6 with its centre at x = 5. Draw 3 perpendicular lines to the radial line at x = 4, x = 5, and x = 6. These perpendicular lines represent, in order, the near-face which always points at the Earth, the lunar centre, and the far-side of the Moon, which always faces away from Earth.

    As the Moon rotates CCW those three lines will always move parallel to each other, meaning the near-face is always moving parallel to the lunar centre and the far aside. Under those conditions it is not possible for the Moon to rotate about its centre.

    In fact, those conditions represent translation without rotation. The illusion of rotation can be explained by the change in orientation of the three perpendicular lines wrt the stars.

    • Craig T says:

      Gordon Robertson says:
      “As the Moon rotates CCW those three lines will always move parallel to each other, meaning the near-face is always moving parallel to the lunar centre and the far aside.”

      Except for the fact that the Moon rotates on an axis that is not perpendicular to its orbital plane. A line drawn from the Earth’s center to the Moon’s center would be pointed 6.6 degrees above the orbital plane in two weeks.

      You should deeply research how astronomers and quantum physicists have reached their conclusions before rejecting them by gut instinct.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        The moon moves a certain way throughout its orbit such that if it did rotate on its own axis, i.e if you were to mistake the moon’s change in direction throughout the orbit for axial rotation, as most people do, you would think the “axis” is tilted wrt the moon’s orbital plane.

        • RLH says:

          “as most people do”

          Most people are correct. Unlike you and your tiny, tiny cult of ‘flat Earther’ equivalents.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No, “most people” are wrong on this one. “Changing direction” does not equal “axial rotation”, or “internal axis rotation”. For instance, the “moon on the left” in the below gif can be described as rotating about an external axis without rotating about an internal axis (so, no “axial rotation”), and yet it is “changing direction” whilst it orbits:

            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif

          • RLH says:

            If you isolate the MOTL (i.e. make only it visible) then it rotates on its axis (i.e. around its center) as viewed from the page.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yes, that would be a combination of translation in a circle (motion like the “moon on the right”) plus internal axis rotation. That is the only way you can describe the “moon on the left” as rotating on its own axis…but notice that I said “rotating about an external axis without rotating about an internal axis”. Your first task is to learn the difference between translation and rotation.

          • RLH says:

            You can only revolve about an external axis (i.e. orbit around it it) not rotate about it.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The axis of rotation need not go through the body.

          • RLH says:

            “The axis of rotation need not go through the body”

            The only case where that might possibly be true is using gravity, where revolving, i.e. orbiting, is then involved. There is no rotation as all.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Look it up. The axis of rotation need not go through the body. Just be told.

          • RLH says:

            You don’t get to decide science. Others do that.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            As I said, look it up. “The axis of rotation need not go through the body” is not my words. It is a direct quote from the Wikipedia entry on “rotation around a fixed axis”.

          • RLH says:

            You cannot rotate about a truly external axis of a single object, only a internal axis that is part of the whole thing.

            Anything that implies the opposite is incorrect.

            You can revolve (i.e. orbit) about another body though.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “Revolve” just means “rotate about an external axis”.

          • Nate says:

            “Revolve’ just means ‘rotate about an external axis’.”

            https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/revolve

            Another cherry-pick of colloquial (non scientific) usage from our resident ‘Declarer of truth’.

            It truly gets boring..

        • Craig T says:

          So can you explain the physics of this “change in direction throughout the orbit” that is so easily explained by axial rotation?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I will re-explain what I already explained in my 5:41 AM comment, sure. A ball on a string changes direction throughout the orbit, but it is not rotating on its own internal axis. It is rotating, or more accurately revolving, about an axis that is external to the ball.

          • RLH says:

            So if you attach a gyro to the ball, would it show it rotates or not?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            It does rotate, but not on its own axis. If the gyro would lead you to believe that the ball is rotating on its own internal axis, that just shows the limitations of an inertial reference frame in discerning axes of rotation.

          • Willard says:

            > that just shows the limitations of an inertial reference frame in discerning axes of rotation.

            That’s a new one, Kiddo. You should expand on that idea.

            If you could also reconcile it to your other one according to which reference frames don’t matter, that’d be great.

          • Craig T says:

            DREMT says: “A ball on a string changes direction throughout the orbit, but it is not rotating on its own internal axis.”

            Your ball on a string always has the point the string is attached closest to the center of orbit. There is no “change in direction throughout the orbit” to mistake for “axial rotation.”

            So again, axial rotation easily explains the changes in the Moon’s orientation to the Earth during orbit. Let’s hear an explanation for how that happens with out the Moon rotating on its axis.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            "Your ball on a string always has the point the string is attached closest to the center of orbit. There is no “change in direction throughout the orbit” to mistake for “axial rotation.”"

            Of course there is a change in direction, Craig. Take a point on the ball that is facing outwards from the orbit, on the other side of the ball from that which attaches to the string. That point faces through e.g. N, E, S and then W as the ball orbits. The ball is changing direction continuously, but it is not rotating on its own axis.

          • RLH says:

            “It does rotate, but not on its own axis”

            It is a universal agreement that rotating about any axis will generate a force that operates outwards away from that axis. Are you saying that the ‘near’ side (as seen from Earth) of the Moon experiences a lesser outwards force than the ‘far side’ (after subtracting the difference in the Earth’s gravity that is)?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I am saying that if the gyro would lead you to believe that the ball is rotating on its own internal axis, that just shows the limitations of an inertial reference frame in discerning axes of rotation.

          • RLH says:

            There is no doubt that the ball is rotating. The only question is the axis it is rotating about.

            ‘Rotation’ about an external axis is revolving not rotating.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “There is no doubt that the ball is rotating. The only question is the axis it is rotating about.”

            Exactly. It is not rotating about an axis that goes through the ball itself. It is rotating, or more accurately revolving, about an axis that is external to the ball.

          • RLH says:

            A gyro will show if it is either rotating or revolving. We know that it is revolving around the Earth, we can see (because it shows both day and night) it is rotating also as seen from the Sun.

            Therefore it is reasonable to conclude that it both rotates and revolves.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The moon can only possibly be “revolving and rotating” if you claim that “orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion as per the “moon on the right”:

            https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif

            However, “orbital motion without axial rotation” is actually motion as per the “moon on the left”.

          • RLH says:

            “orbital motion without axial rotation” is indeed MOTR. Just isolate the MOTL and the MOTR and keep them centered in separate windows and you will see that quite clearly.

            MOTL rotates once on its axis per orbit of the Earth. MOTR does not.

            Imagine you are the Sun at the top of the picture a long way away. For the MOTL you will see both ‘day’ and ‘night’ over the whole Moon’s surface with a dark surface presented to the Earth at the ‘top’ and a full disc at the ‘bottom’. For the MOTR you would see it remain constant.

            We know that MOTL is what we see. That is orbital motion with axial rotation despite your claims to the contrary.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            It’s quite simple, RLH. If “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTL, then the MOTR is orbiting counter-clockwise whilst rotating on its own axis, clockwise, once per orbit. If “orbital motion without axial rotation” is as per the MOTR, then the MOTL is orbiting counter-clockwise whilst rotating on its own axis, counter-clockwise, once per orbit.

          • RLH says:

            You can define “orbital motion without axial rotation” to be the opposite of what it truly is all you like. Doesn’t alter its true meaning. If there is no axial rotation wrt the fixed stars then it is MOTR not MOTL.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “You can define “orbital motion without axial rotation” to be the opposite of what it truly is all you like.”

            Yes, you “Spinners” can, and do.

          • Ball4 says:

            There is not absolute motion as DREMT writes “truly”, both spinners and non-spinners can be correct because all motion is relative. Hence the debate is never ending but entertaining as DREMT avoids relativity.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “Orbital motion without axial rotation” is either motion like the MOTL, or the MOTR. Only one can be correct. Whether you admit it or not, Ball4, you think it is the MOTR. “Non-Spinners” think it is the MOTL. You despise the simplicity of this and long to obfuscate, which is why you do what you do.

          • Ball4 says:

            There is no “only one can be correct” as ALL motion is relative. The only way DREMT is “truly” correct is that there exists absolute motion which is proven instrumentally not to exist.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Say what you like, Ball4. I know from your previous arguments that you think “orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion like the MOTR.

          • Ball4 says:

            It can also be accurately described relatively like MOTL, since ALL motion is relative.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “Orbital motion without axial rotation” is either motion like the MOTL, or the MOTR. It cannot be both.

          • bobdroege says:

            The caption says Moon on the right.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Keep jumping in on my comments, don’t you, bob?

          • bobdroege says:

            DREMPTY,

            Learned that from you.

            How does it feel to be such a loser?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I wouldn’t know. Ask your fellow “Spinners”.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        craig…”Except for the fact that the Moon rotates on an axis that is not perpendicular to its orbital plane. A line drawn from the Earths center to the Moons center would be pointed 6.6 degrees above the orbital plane in two weeks”.

        ***

        The red-herring arguments you supply are pointless. The axis you claim is a theoretical axis derived by guessing. The Moon does not rotate therefore it has no axis. If you would learn to comprehend what I have written, you might get it, but I would not hold my breath that you’d acknowledge the proof.

        • RLH says:

          “The Moon does not rotate therefore it has no axis”

          You are wrong. It has a North and South pole just as the Earth does.

        • Ken says:

          Robertson, You are wrong. The moon orbits the sun in tandem with the earth. The moon always faces earth meaning sometimes the ‘face’ is toward the sun and sometimes it faces away from the sun; new and full moon. So obviously the moon does rotate on its axis.

          I would that you look at a picture describing the moon’s trajectory and visualize how the moon must rotate on its axis in order to continuously facing the earth.

          This never ending discussion is getting tedious. This thread is supposed to be about climate and you are high-jacking the thread with your ill-thought-out logic.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yes, this discussion is getting tedious. “Spinner” Craig T is to blame for bringing it back up again, this time.

          • Clint R says:

            Ken, I believe this is the third time you’ve been fooled by your “trajectory”. You don’t understand orbital motions, AT ALL.

            As I mentioned before, the ball-on-a-string would have the same “trajectory”, if swung around your head while riding in the edge of the merry-go-round. The same side of the ball would always be facing you. The ball is NOT rotating about its axis.

            You can’t get it right, and you can’t learn.

          • Willard says:

            Pup, as the leader of the comment legion and Kiddo’s sidekick in the Moon Dragon trolling, you should lead by example and stop repeating the same comment over and over again.

            Do the Poll Dance Experiment.

            Report.

          • Ken says:

            Clint, I’m sure you’re a sterling fellow, well thought of at the flat earth society meetings.

            However, I wouldn’t trust your directions on screwing in a lightbulb. You’re so obviously wrong and obstreperous in refusing to consider that you could possibly be wrong.

            Begone Troll.

          • Clint R says:

            Ken, you probably believe you can go through life perverting reality. Like when you claimed Kepler proved Newton wrong. Only Kepler died before Newton was born!

            If Braindead-idon can catch your perversions of history, you won’t make it with normal people.

          • Ken says:

            Kepler Newton … yes I was wrong.

            Your turn:

          • Craig T says:

            “This never ending discussion is getting tedious. This thread is supposed to be about climate and you are high-jacking the thread with your ill-thought-out logic.”

            Why is this any less tedious than the ill-thought-out climate logic repeated here month after month?

            Willard says:
            November 6, 2021 at 11:04 AM
            http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-975763

            What a nice summary of the rotation arguments, even if you left out the horses running on a track. Have you done one for the years of the same climate babble?

            I consider the denial of the Moon’s rotation a distilled version of most conversations at this site. The science has been settled for 400 years yet the usual suspects ignore everything shown them that involves scientific observation of the topic discussed.

          • Willard says:

            Well, actually, Kiddo:

            The tallest peak on the planet, Mount Everest, moved three centimeters and changed direction because of the Nepal earthquake in April. The mountain moved slightly to the southwest, according to a geological survey by the Chinese government.

            https://www.rt.com/news/267643-earthquake-everest-move-mountain/

            You know what a change of direction implies, right?

          • Willard says:

            > Have you done one for the years of the same climate babble?

            Click on my name, Craig.

            There is also:

            https://contrarianmatrix.wordpress.com/

            I’ll amend my “welcome aboard” to “welcome back,” then!

        • Craig T says:

          “The axis you claim is a theoretical axis derived by guessing.”

          The axis was calculated through careful observation. Not only has laser reflectors from the Apollo missions been used but probes like the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter measure variations in the polar axis as small as 10 arc seconds.
          https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018EGUGA..20.9977S/abstract

          • Clint R says:

            Craig T, you don’t know anything about the relevant physics. You just find things on the Internet you can’t understand, and assume it supports your false beliefs.

            Moon’s reflectors and libration have NOTHING to do with the fact that it does NOT rotate about its axis.

            (What time is your next cult meeting?)

          • Willard says:

            You missed this part, Pup:

            In this paper, we demonstrate that this data can be used to track the slight variations in the orientation of the rotation axis and the rotation rate.

            You’re getting a strong lead. Calm down a bit.

            ***

            Clint,

            Perhaps you don’t know it, but our Moon Dragon cranks have been at it at Roy’s for three years or so already. They keep repeating more of the same. You might find this Master Argument handy:

            THE MOON DRAGON MASTER ARGUMENT (v.3)

            **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. In that motion the same face remains oriented towards the inside of the orbit throughout. 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. But it is only an illustration.

            (CANNONBALL) 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.
            (TORQUE) Since there is nothing to apply a torque about the internal axis, there will be no spin.

            (LOCK) The Moon is tidally locked, hence why it no longer spins. If the same side always faces the inside of the orbit, it is NOT rotating.

            (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 purely 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.

            (IGNORE) Ignore.

            ***

            In any case, welcome aboard!

          • Willard says:

            > Clint,

            Craig, of course.

            Pup needs no introduction.

          • Entropic man says:

            I note that relative to the inertial reference frame, relative to the Sun, relative to any of the other planets and relative to the stars the Moon rotates. All these reference frames agree on the position of the lunar axis.

            The only reference frame in which you do not see lunar rotation is relative to Clint R.

            I’m sure there is a word for someone so self-centred that they think the universe revolves around them.

          • Bindidon says:

            Craig T

            … and let us above all not forget the German astronomer Tobias Mayer, who observed in 1748/49 a few craters on the Moon, and then computed, out of these observations

            – thinlcination of Moon’s spin axis wrt the Ecliptic
            – Moon’s spin period
            and then
            – the selenocentric coordinates of all the observed craters.

            This work of course was the pre-condition to obtain lunar tables of unprecedented accuracy: it took 50 years until better tables could be published.

            Mayer’s most impressive result however was the precision of his spin period for the Moon, which first differs from today’s LLR based computations below the fifth digit after the decimal point.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Entropic Man, I note that relative to the inertial reference frame, Mt. Everest appears to be rotating on its own axis, even though it obviously is not, in reality.

            You will miss the point, and in a month or so will return to make the exact same flawed point about reference frames as you just did. Oh well.

          • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

            Entropic man at 11:46 AM

            Your post reminded me of a comment made by L. Morton of the National Bureau of Standards in 1964, and which seems even more appropriate for today’s world of blogs, tweets, etc.

            “With the present widespread tendency of not reading beyond the ephemeral, all of us are constantly in danger of rediscovering what has been known for a long time.”

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Reference frames do not settle the moon issue.

          • RLH says:

            DREMT. Nothing settles you are not an idiot. Because you are.

          • Clint R says:

            DREMT offers reality, and the braindead cult idiots offer insults, slurs, and sources they can’t understand.

          • Willard says:

            Pup kinda forgot to put up or shut up on Tim’s views:

            https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-965268

            Too busy leading the comment trolling charge.

          • Entropic man says:

            DREMTRelative to the Sun, planets and stars Mt Everest is rotating.

            Gyroscopes attached to it show that it is rotating relative to the inertial reference frame.

            The Earth Mt Everest is attached to is rotating about every 24 hours, so Mt Everest is rotating at the same rate.

            Yet you eejits claim that Everest is not rotating. Explain.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            It’s quite simple, E Man. Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis. It is rotating about the Earth’s axis, same as every other part of the Earth…but it is not rotating on its own axis.

            Get it?

          • Entropic man says:

            So we agree that Mt Everest is rotating, since rotation around an external axis is still rotation.

            So why do you claim that it is not rotating?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I never said that it wasn’t rotating. I said it wasn’t rotating on its own axis. It is not rotating about an axis that passes through Mt. Everest itself. You are slower than I realized.

          • Craig T says:

            Unlike Mt. Everest the Moon is rotating on its own axis, one independent of the Earth. And DREMT won’t say why all the measurements of that rotation are wrong.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            So Craig agrees that Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis…yet if you measured its motion wrt an inertial reference frame, you might mistakenly conclude that it is rotating on its own axis…and you would have the measurements to “prove” it.

          • Craig T says:

            DREMT you love to dance around a point. There is no reference frame that measures Mt Everest as rotating on an axis separate from the Earth or as rotating on an axis that passes through the mountain. (Ignoring any movement over geologic time.)

            There are 300 years of observation of the Moon rotating on an axis 6.6 degrees off of its orbital plane. The axis passes through the Moon. The Earth does not rotate around that same axis.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Obviously you are not too familiar with reference frames then Craig. If you had the origin of your reference frame in the center of Mt. Everest, and your coordinate system axes pointing always towards fixed stars, then wrt that coordinate system Mt. Everest would indeed appear to be rotating on its own axis. However, we both know that it is not rotating on its own axis.

          • Willard says:

            Well, actually, Kiddo:

            The tallest peak on the planet, Mount Everest, moved three centimeters and changed direction because of the Nepal earthquake in April. The mountain moved slightly to the southwest, according to a geological survey by the Chinese government.

            https://www.rt.com/news/267643-earthquake-everest-move-mountain/

            You know what a change of direction implies, right?

          • Craig T says:

            “If you had the origin of your reference frame in the center of Mt. Everest, and your coordinate system axes pointing always towards fixed stars, then wrt that coordinate system Mt. Everest would indeed appear to be rotating on its own axis.”

            From both the north pole and Mt. Everest the stars appear to rotate around Polaris. But only from the north pole does Polaris appear centered in the sky. Only from the north pole would a plumb line point at Polaris.

            Note that the Earth’s orbital plane isn’t perpendicular to its axis. A line drawn from the Sun perpendicular to the ecliptic would point at stars other than Polaris.

            From the Moon the stars appear to rotate around a different star than Polaris or the star pointed to by a line perpendicular to the Moon’s orbital plane. A plumb line at the Moon’s north pole is not perpendicular to the Moon’s orbital plane but it points to the Moon’s “north star.”

            Astronomers 300 years ago realized the Moon’s apparent lack of rotation is an illusion. Now that we’ve been to the Moon and measured the details of the Moon’s rotation it’s time for you to catch up.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            “Ignoring any movement over geologic time”

            Yes, obviously. Why would any commenter even bring up such movements, unless they were trolling?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Craig T now dances around the point, unable to accept that there is a reference frame from which Mt. Everest would appear to be rotating on its own axis, once per day.

          • E. Swanson says:

            pups wrote:

            If you had the origin of your reference frame in the center of Mt. Everest, and your coordinate system axes pointing always towards fixed stars, then wrt that coordinate system Mt. Everest would indeed appear to be rotating on its own axis.

            pups fails physics again. The “center” of Mt. Everest is not the Center of Mass of the Earth, which is the proper location to be used for the origin of the inertial reference frame. Pups selected a location for which the Earth CoM would appear to be rotating around Mt. Everest.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            You can use any location you like for the origin of your inertial reference frame, Swanson. Some people even use the center of mass of the moon, and then falsely conclude that it is rotating on its own axis!

          • Nate says:

            “Ignoring any movement over geologic time’

            Yes, obviously. Why would any commenter even bring up such movements, unless they were trolling?”

            Ha!

            Thus, DREMT clearly understands Swenson is trolling when he brings up the cooling of Earth over geologic time.

          • E. Swanson says:

            pups wrote:

            Some people even use the center of mass of the moon, and then falsely correctly conclude that it is rotating on its own axis!

            Some people might also use the Earth’s CoM as the origin and place the X-axis along the Orbit’s semi-major axis and the Y-axis in the orbital plane. Doing this would also show that the Moon rotates once an orbit.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            The point flies over Swanson’s head, as usual.

          • Craig T says:

            “Craig T now dances around the point, unable to accept that there is a reference frame from which Mt. Everest would appear to be rotating on its own axis, once per day.”

            Then enlighten me. What axis runs through Mt. Everest that it appears to rotates on? Not that Mt. Everest rotates around the Earth’s axis, or the Sun, or the center of the Milky Way, but some axis passing through the mountain that stays aligned to the fixed stars during a rotation.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            It would be an axis parallel to the Earth’s axis, passing through the CoM of Mt. Everest.

            But Craig, you are getting confused. I agree with you. Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis.

            The point is, you could use reference frames to confuse yourself into believing that it is rotating on its own axis. And, indeed, many "Spinners" have argued Mt. Everest is doing just that.

            This is why reference frames do not settle the moon issue.

            It is also why those measurements you linked to do not settle the moon issue.

          • Craig T says:

            “It would be an axis parallel to the Earth’s axis, passing through the CoM of Mt. Everest.”

            I’ll ignore for a moment how anyone could consider Everest rotating around that axis and concede that the two parallel lines point to the same fixed stars. That was why I pointed out that the axis the Moon is calculated to turn about does not point to Polaris nor is that axis perpendicular to the Moon’s orbital plane. That axis has a precession measured to take 18.6 years to complete.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Craig, many of your fellow “Spinners” have argued that Mt. Everest is rotating on its own axis. I know, it seems ridiculous, but it’s true. They’ve argued that. In fact, some have argued that everything on Earth is rotating on its own axis, just because the Earth is rotating on its own axis!

          • bobdroege says:

            DREMPTY,

            Is this reference frame inertial or non-inertial?

            “If you had the origin of your reference frame in the center of Mt. Everest, and your coordinate system axes pointing always towards fixed stars, then wrt that coordinate system Mt. Everest would indeed appear to be rotating on its own axis.”

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Ask Swanson. When I wrote that, he responded:

            “The “center” of Mt. Everest is not the Center of Mass of the Earth, which is the proper location to be used for the origin of the inertial reference frame”

          • E. Swanson says:

            pups wrote:

            …some have argued that everything on Earth is rotating on its own axis, just because the Earth is rotating on its own axis!

            No, pups, you still fail physics. The “axis of rotation” is an imaginary line within the Earth or the Moon. Each is a free body and both rotate, it’s the measured fact of rotation and it’s mathematical description which defines the location of the axis in each body. Thus, no rotation, no axis.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Swanson, why do you keep yelling at me when you are actually arguing with your fellow “Spinners”? They are the ones who said everything on Earth is rotating on its own axis, not me.

          • bobdroege says:

            DREMTPY,

            Yes he did, he may be mistaken. But he is usually correct.

            But you also said this

            “You can use any location you like for the origin of your inertial reference frame,”

            Um, no you can’t, there are certain requirements for the origin of an inertial reference frame, and you can exclude any location on the Moon or the Earth.

            Perhaps you don’t understand inertial reference frames.

            Which means any claim that inertial reference frames don’t matter my be absurd.

            Anyway, from an inertial reference frame, the Moon is rotating on its axis.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I’ll let you and Swanson fight that out, bob. I have no interest in talking to you.

          • bobdroege says:

            DREMPTY,

            I get it, you don’t like people showing you that you are wrong.

            Sorry about that.

            There, that’s the apology you were after from me.

            Ha!

            I’ll get me coat.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            I get it, you think you have shown Swanson that he is wrong. Like I said, I will let you two fight it out.

          • bobdroege says:

            DREMPTY,

            As long as you will respond to me,

            You said, not quoting Swanson this time,

            “You can use any location you like for the origin of your inertial reference frame,”

            This is bullshit, you are wrong, it’s not Swanson this time, it’s you.

            You obviously keep repeating your misunderstanding of what is required for an inertial reference frame.

            Go on, keep being stupid about something you can look up, and even Wikepedia will get this one correct.

            If used correctly, an inertial reference frame will settle the Moon rotation issue, because relative to an inertial reference frame, and that’s the only one that counts, the Moon is definitely rotating on its axis, that axis being through the body of the Moon, though not necessarily through the center of mass.

            You have struck out and there is no joy in DREMPTYville.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Like I said, I will let you and Swanson fight it out.

          • bobdroege says:

            DREMPTY,

            If you don’t defend your statements, you lose.

            If you don’t define your terms you lose.

            So far, you are pretty much a loser.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            You are up against Swanson, bdgwx and Tim Folkerts, bob. All have previously used and discussed inertial reference frames in agreement with the way I understand them, and not the way you understand them. Best of luck.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            OK, bob. Let me know when you have fought it out with Swanson.

          • bobdroege says:

            DREMPTY,

            This is how you stated to use an inertial reference frame

            “You can use any location you like for the origin of your inertial reference frame, Swanson.”

            It is incorrect, you have to pick a location that is not accelerating, so any place on the Earth or the Moon would not be a valid place for the center of a inertial reference frame.

            From wikipedia, in this case, can be trusted, it agrees with other sources

            “n classical physics and special relativity, an inertial frame of reference is a frame of reference that is not undergoing acceleration.”

            That’s the way I am using it, not the way you are using it, you are wrong, I am right, and have a good night.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            bob, argue it out with Swanson, bdgwx and Tim.

          • bobdroege says:

            DREMPTY,

            I am arguing with you because I know you made that statement.

            You won’t argue with me because you are wrong and you are a coward.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Why don’t Swanson, bdgwx or Tim look it up in a physics textbook? I don’t know, bob. Ask them.

          • Ball4 says:

            They already did. DREMT needs to do so also.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Here we go…

    • stephen p anderson says:

      Gordo,

      It doesn’t matter to me how you describe the Moon’s motion. It does what it does. I’ll let you guys debate that one. Doesn’t affect me either way.

  59. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    The geographic and temporal variations in tropospheric and stratospheric ozone columns from individual swath measurements of the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI), on the NASA Aura spacecraft, are reasonably well simulated by the University of California, Irvine (UCI) chemistry transport model (CTM) using 1°×1°×40-layer meteorological fields for the year 2005. From the CTM we find that high-frequency spatial variations in tropospheric column ozone (TCO), including around the jet streams, are not generally correlated with variations in stratospheric ozone column, but instead are collocated with folding events involving stratospheric-origin, high-ozone layers.
    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/47690377_Correlating_tropospheric_column_ozone_with_tropopause_folds_The_Aura-OMI_satellite_data
    https://i.ibb.co/KzrFxd5/gfs-t70-nh-f00.png

  60. TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

    All knowing Gordon Robertson 11:07 PM

    Perfect timing of this job posting; they could use your expertise, and possibly even save a little money.

    The Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Syracuse University seeks applicants for a Postdoctoral Researcher/Scholar position in organic geochemistry and paleoclimate dynamics. This is a fully funded, full-time, 2-year position (1 year, renewable for an additional year), with full benefits and funding to attend conferences/workshops. The researcher will work on a project that seeks to better understand the history of the Pacific Walker Circulation since the early Pliocene. Responsibilities include the development of new leaf wax based proxy records and related organic geochemical records, and interpreting these data in the context of new climate model simulations. They will work with researchers at Syracuse University and University of Connecticut, among other institutions. There will be ample opportunities for professional development in the form of short courses, conferences, mentoring, outreach, and grant writing.

    The project is well-suited to applicants with expertise in proxy based paleoclimatic reconstruction and diagnostic analysis of model simulations. Experience with organic geochemical proxies is considered an asset, as is experience with scientific data analysis and programming. Applicants should have a demonstrated record of publication and a PhD in a related field (earth and environmental sciences, geography, climate science) at the time of starting this position.

    Responsibilities include: development of organic geochemical records of past hydroclimate from the Pacific (20%); analyzing and quantifying changes in climate model simulations (30%); writing scientific manuscripts and presenting results at conferences (20%); supervising undergraduate and graduate students working on smaller projects in the lab (10%); guest lecturing in courses and supporting outreach activities in the Earth and Environmental Sciences Department (10%); and other duties, as assigned (10%).

    Posted: 11/05/2021
    Closes: 12/01/2021

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      maguff…”The Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Syracuse University seeks applicants for a Postdoctoral Researcher/Scholar position in organic geochemistry…”

      ***

      Sorry, that would be a demotion for me.

      Does it not strike you as somewhat pathetic, following me around slinging ad homs because you have no scientific argument available for a rebuttal?

      • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

        I’m pretty sure that JAWOROWSKI, were he alive today, would not qualify for this position given his degrees in Medicine and Natural Science.

        I rather enjoy confronting your prevarications and compelling you to write word salads that, had you any science or engineering training, could be summarized in one, two max, paragraphs. So, no, not pathetic, candor never is.

  61. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Stratospheric intrusion with high ozone levels will now hit the northwestern US. Temperatures near the surface will fall well below average for the day.
    https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_int/gif_files/gfs_o3mr_200_NA_f000.png

  62. PhilJ says:

    “Its a ridiculous argument to make that the earth surface is at its present temperature and is continuing to cool linearly from a molten state billions of years ago.”

    why is this ridiculous? Is the Earth not continuing to cool as entropy demands?

    • Nate says:

      ‘continuing to cool as entropy demands’?

      Again, PhilJ ignores the daily input of energy from the sun, as if it doesnt exist!

      Very strange indeed.

    • stephen p anderson says:

      PhilJ,

      Don’t you know the planet has been at the same temperature for 4 billion years until nasty old humans came along and started generating fossil fuels?

    • Ken says:

      The earth is not continuing to cool because there is very limited convection that would allow heat at the earth core to reach the surface. So yes, its ridiculous, particularly in light of several periods in earth history where much of the earth surface was covered with thick ice.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        ken…the heat in the Earth’s core is continuously produced, some think via nuclear reaction. There is no direct proof that the Earth was ever covered by massive sheets of ice, it is nothing more than conjecture. The claim that North America was covered by a kilometre of ice strikes me as bs.

        Ice that produces glaciers begins on mountains as snow. The snow is compacted and eventually forms ice. The pressure on the base of the ice turns it to a plastic state and the ice flows downhill. How does one explain a kilometre of ice over the prairies, where there are no mountains?

        In Antarctica, the ice shelves that are claimed as proof of global warming when they break off, are produced by ice flowing downhill to the ocean. At the ocean, the ice pushes out over the ocean, where it lacks support. Eventually, with ocean wave action and gravity, the ice shelves break off. That is known as calving in geology but the alarmist twits have turned it into a sci-fi climate change.

        • Ken says:

          I grew up near Oak Ridges Moraine. It was put there by a glacier. A big glacier Proof enough for me. There are literally millions of geological features across North America and Europe that indicate massive ice action.

          I used to live in Lethbridge. There are many erratic s left by melting ice across Southern Alberta.

          I live on Vancouver Island. Sea level is rising here because of isostatic rebound that has resulted from melting glaciers.

          ‘No direct proof’ is a bs denial of geology.

          • Ken says:

            Correction. I wrote sea level is rising. Actually it is dropping at my location on Vancouver Island. Land is rising faster than the global sea level rate.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            ken…”‘No direct proof’ is a bs denial of geology”.

            ***

            There are two basic forms of geology: objective geology and theoretical geology. The objective kind involves the study of rocks and rock formations, which can be directly observed and analyzed. The theoretical type involves speculation.

            There is evidence of glacial deposits, like moraines and eskers that can be logically related to past glacial action. However, the rocks and sediment are gathered while the glacier is flowing down a mountain and into a plain.

            If there were huge accumulations of ice over a place like Lethbridge, where there are no mountains or glaciers, when the ice melted it would lave no evidence of the ice. Or, if what you say is true for Lethbridge would apply right across the prairies. There is no such evidence of kilometre-high ice fields on the prairies.

            Plate tectonics has become a paradigm but there is no evidence to back it. All you have are what appear to be corresponding shapes in continents that MIGHT have joined together at some time. There is better evidence in the sea floor that such motion of the crust did not take place.

          • RLH says:

            “There is better evidence in the sea floor that such motion of the crust did not take place”

            So where does the sea floor that is created at central ocean ridges go to?

        • Nate says:

          “The claim that North America was covered by a kilometre of ice strikes me as bs.’

          True.

          Whatever strikes Gordon as BS… regardless of what the scientific evidence is, regardless of whether Gordon is even familiar with the evidence…must be BS!

          Because, dear readers, Gordon is the decider.

        • Craig T says:

          “There is no direct proof that the Earth was ever covered by massive sheets of ice.”

          Then again, there is no direct proof the Earth was entirely molten in its past. If you pick and choose what scientific evidence you accept anything is possible.

          “Plate tectonics has become a paradigm but there is no evidence to back it.”

          Plate tectonics is a classic “they said I was mad” story. First laughed at, evidence slowly collected until plate tectonics became the best way to explain the observations. Try explaining Mt. Everest without plate tectonics.

          • bobdroege says:

            Easy, the oceans were once 30.000 feet deeper than they are now, that’s how sea shell got on top of Mt Everest, whilst it was spinning on its axis.

  63. Gordon Robertson says:

    rlh…”Most people are correct”.

    ***

    One of the dumbest things you have ever said, Richard, and well below your status as someone with a Master’s degree. You certainly have fallen prey to the appeal to authority.

  64. Gordon Robertson says:

    stephen…”It doesnt matter to me how you describe the Moons motion. It does what it does. Ill let you guys debate that one. Doesnt affect me either way”.

    ***

    Good way to approach it. You and I agree on the alarmist bs, which is the main thing.

    I replied to you because you commented on a comment on Christos’ site. I was aiming my post more at him than you, who are the messenger.

    As far as it not mattering to you what it does, let’s hope it does not lose momentum. It would be a frightening, life-ending site to see that huge chunk of rock falling on our heads. Many a night, when I look up at the Moon I offer a prayer of thanks that it stays where it is.

    That does raise a good point. If the Moon did lose momentum suddenly and came crashing down vertically, no matter where you were on Earth, it would fall with the same face below it. That proves the Moon does not rotate.

    • RLH says:

      So you are saying that it doesn’t matter the orbital distance, it will speed up its rotation (so that the same face always ‘points’ towards Earth) if it gets closer but reduce its rotation if it gets further away.

      Please note, the Moon does NOT fall towards Earth, it falls to a point over the horizon when all the motions are taken into account.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        rlh…”So you are saying that it doesnt matter the orbital distance, it will speed up its rotation (so that the same face always points towards Earth) if it gets closer but reduce its rotation if it gets further away”.

        ***

        Nope. I mean the Moon has no local rotation, it is performing only linear translation. The action of gravity on the Moon bends that linear translation into a curved path.

        The airliner flying at 35,000 feet has only linear momentum and is trying to fly with linear translation. Gravity also bends the airliner into a curved path, keeping the same side pointed at the Earth.

        To be more accurate, the airliner’s lift is in equilibrium with gravitational force, keeping the airliner at a constant altitude. Even if the Earth’s surface curves, that equilibrium never changes (ideally) hence the airliner will follow the curved surface of the Earth.

        Exactly the same for the Moon. The Moon’s linear momentum is in equilibrium with Earth’s gravity, hence the Moon follows the curved surface of the Earth. The Moon requires no lift since there is no air resistance to affect it.

        Pure translation, Richard, no rotation required.

        • RLH says:

          “Nope. I mean the Moon has no local rotation”

          Yes it has. Once on its axis per orbit of the Earth.

          “Pure translation, Richard, no rotation required”

          Pure translation would mean that one ‘face’ always pointed towards a fixed star. (i.e. aligned with a gyro) That’s what translation (a change in lateral co-ordinates) means. Translation does not alter radial co-ordinates about an axis at all.

        • RLH says:

          “The airliner flying at 35,000 feet has only linear momentum and is trying to fly with linear translation. Gravity also bends the airliner into a curved path, keeping the same side pointed at the Earth”

          Gyros (horizontal) require adjusting as an aircraft flies ‘parallel’ to the surface of the globe. Are you denying that simple fact?

        • Craig T says:

          “The airliner flying at 35,000 feet has only linear momentum and is trying to fly with linear translation.”

          So why do they bother to place engines under the wings?

          An airliner has forward thrust to keep it moving and airborne. Remove that thrust and it could be pointing in any direction when it hits the ground. Gravity acts on the center of mass and airliners are moving far too slow to make it around the curvature of the Earth by momentum alone.

          Divers have only linear momentum. They can turn themselves in any direction while falling. Nothing about gravity changes an object’s orientation.

    • stephen p anderson says:

      Gordo,

      What does affect me is when a necessary and important natural gas like carbon dioxide is allowed to be labeled as a pollutant for the purpose of controlling the free market. The left hates the free market. They are the masterminds. They want and feel they’re entitled to control and regulate nature in the “name” of Nature. That is psychopathic and pathological.

      • Craig T says:

        “The left hates the free market. They are the masterminds. They want and feel they’re entitled to control and regulate nature in the ‘name’ of Nature.”

        Rather than debating physics you should try supplying evidence of this mass conspiracy. Does it involve satanic pedophiles eating babies?

  65. Gordon Robertson says:

    ken…”Robertson, You are wrong. The moon orbits the sun in tandem with the earth. The moon always faces earth meaning sometimes the face is toward the sun and sometimes it faces away from the sun; new and full moon. So obviously the moon does rotate on its axis”.

    ***

    You’re becoming rude like Binny, are you two related?

    Let’s see if I can dumb this right down so you can understand why your claim that the Moon orbits the Sun is so wrong.

    In basic physics, a body orbiting another body in space requires a linear momentum wrt that body that is critical to the altitude of its orbit and in the direction of the orbital path. In other words, if the momentum is too high for the altitude, the body will not go into orbit but fly past the body on a parabolic or hyperbolic path. If the momentum is too low, the body will crash into the body.

    The Moon HAS NO SUCH MOMENTUM ABOUT THE SUN!!!! Come on, man, this is seriously basic physics. The Moon has only momentum about the Earth. As such, that momentum is directed through 360 degrees wrt the Sun, by Earth’s gravity, and only once per orbit is it aligned with the Earth linear momentum about the Sun. On the other side of the orbit, the momentum is pointed in the opposite direction.

    The Earth and the Moon are not a unit. The Earth orbits the Sun and the Moon orbits the Earth. The drawing you produced from Wiki is nothing more than someone’s geometric abstraction.

    Your claim that the Moon must rotate because it gathers light from the Sun during its orbit is misguided. We only ever see the face pointed at the Earth and when the Moon is on the opposite side of the Earth from the Sun, or when the Moon is facing parallel to the Earth orbit, it is lit. When the same side is between the Sun and the Earth, it is not lit.

    If the Moon was rotating, when it was a full Moon on the far-side of the Earth from the Sun, we would see different faces of the Moon. We turn 27+ times for each lunar orbit and we would see much more than the present near-side if the Moon was rotating.

    Why can’t you guys get it that it is impossible for the Moon to rotate about a local axis and still keep the same face pointed at the Earth?

    • Clint R says:

      If Ken knew any science, he would know that ANY periodic oscillation could be represented by one or more sine waves. Orbital motion definitely fits. I explained to him that the ball-on-a-string would produce the same result. So for Ken to be so shocked by the “trajectory” indicates he has NO knowledge of the subject.

      He’s just going with the crowd.

      • Willard says:

        If Pup knew any logic, he’d realize that establishing possibility does not mean much. It just means it’s not impossible. Yet he talks as if it was necessary or something.

        Hence why he’s trolling so much.

        Will he will the title this month?

    • RLH says:

      “The Earth and the Moon are not a unit”

      Both the Earth and the Moon orbit the combined Earth/Moon barycenter. That is a fact.

    • RLH says:

      “Why cant you guys get it that it is impossible for the Moon to rotate about a local axis and still keep the same face pointed at the Earth?”

      Why can’t you see that the Moon rotates once on its axis per orbit of the Earth? Thus keeping one side/face always ‘facing’ the Earth.

      • Clint R says:

        RLH, if you understood orbital motion, you would know that if Moon were actually rotating about its axis, we would see all sides of it from Earth.

        But, you don’t understand orbital motion. In fact, you reject the reality of the model, used in colleges and universities. You reject reality

        • RLH says:

          I understand orbit motions quite well thank you.

          It is you who are incorrect.

          If the Moon rotates once on it axis per orbit as claimed, then a single face will always ‘face’ Earth just as observed.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        rlh…”Why cant you see that the Moon rotates once on its axis per orbit of the Earth? Thus keeping one side/face always facing the Earth”.

        ***

        Because, it’s not possible. Someone with your background should be able to analyze the situation using math. Also, you should be able to get it from the airliner example I provided.

        • RLH says:

          GR: I am perfectly capable of using logic and science thank you. They both tell me that you are wrong and that they are right. Your aircraft example shows you do not understand how gyros work or that they are continuously adjusted during flight to keep things ‘level’. You sound very like ‘flat earthers’ who deny such adjustments happen at all.

    • gbaikie says:

      That posted, this time. Also look at part 1 to 3 and then wait for part 5

      This describes some weather in our ice age.

      And I do think solar cycles can play a part in such weather.
      And volcanic eruptions could also affect the weather.
      If you interested in weather and/or climate, check it out.

  66. gbaikie says:

    “An illustration of the private Nova-C moon lander built by Intuitive Machines with NASA’s Polar Resources Ice-Mining Experiment-1 (PRIME-1) attached to the spacecraft. (Image credit: Intuitive Machines)”
    That drawing seems to indicate, that, the lander will get hot.
    https://www.space.com/nasa-intuitive-machines-moon-landing-site-ice-mission
    {and the shadow is not long enough}

    “NASA has set its sights on the moon’s south pole in its quest for ice.

    This week, the space agency and the company Intuitive Machines announced Shackleton Crater landing site at the south pole of the moon for a small lander set to launch next year. The location is called the “Shackleton connecting ridge” and NASA data hint at ice lurking below the surface, the agency said in a statement Wednesday (Nov. 3). “

  67. Ireneusz Palmowski says:

    Is La Nina already in effect in Australia? Heavy rainfall in eastern Australia.

  68. Stephen P Anderson
    “It doesn’t matter to me how you describe the Moon’s motion. It does what it does. I’ll let you guys debate that one. Doesn’t affect me either way.”

    Me too.

    Maybe, if there is an observed the Moon’s axis orientation change, maybe it is an argument for the Moon’s axial rotation.
    I say maybe, I am not sure of that either.

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • Craig T says:

      “Maybe, if there is an observed the Moon’s axis orientation change, maybe it is an argument for the Moons axial rotation.”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_precession#Axial_precession

      • Clint R says:

        Craig, did you find another link you don’t understand?

        NOTHING about that link proves Moon is rotating about its axis. A “defined” axis will change, relative to the ecliptic, if the lunar orbit varies.

        That’s why you need to stick to something you can understand. The ball-on-a-string is the model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. We know the ball is not rotating because the string is not wrapping around it. We know Moon is not rotating because we see only one side of it.

        It’s easy to understand, and verifiable. No spin. Only the braindead could deny it.

        • Norman says:

          Clint R

          You can easily prove your point wrong if you are willing to put out a little effort. I requested this before, for unknown reasons you did not put out the effort but you continue to offer you opinions.

          Rather than offer opinions you can engage in actual science by doing a simple test to prove that your points are wrong.

          Take two cans. Put one in the center and have the other acting like an orbiting body. Tape a rubber band to the top of the “orbiting” can and then do it in a location where you can secure the other end of the rubber band to a non-moving anchor point above the “orbiting” can. The rubber band will act as the axis for this can.

          Now move the “orbiting” can in a circular path around the other can without rotating with your hand at all. You will see the rubber band does not wind up under this case. If you keep the “orbiting” can facing the center can as you move it around (you will have to rotate it as you move it in its circular path) you will see the rubber band winding up proving the can is indeed rotating on its “axis of rotation” as you move it around the circular path. Try it and let me know your results. Otherwise you just spout untested opinions. The “ball-on-string” is one case but it does not represent a freely moving body. The ball on string is no different than any part of a record revolving on a player. The whole record is revolving, all separate parts are revolving around the center. The ball is connected to the string and revolving with as one unit (like a rod would). It does not represent a free moving body like the Moon.

          • Clint R says:

            Yes Norman, you’re still confusing “orbiting” with “rotating”.

            Stick with the ball-on-a-string. It won’t confuse you.

          • RLH says:

            A ball-on-a-string is only relevant to a ball-on-a-string.

          • Ken says:

            Ball on string doesn’t work.

            Sun and Earth both exert gravitational force on the moon. If the string analogy would work they both have a string connecting to the moon. Actually elastic would be needed because moon distance to sun changes and moon speed relative to earth changes too as it moves to orbit further from and closer to the sun.

            Any visualization of such a scheme leaves the string tangled rather badly.

          • Clint R says:

            Ken, do you just start abusing your keyboard without ANY understanding of the subject?

            The ball-on-a-string is a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. It is not intended to be a perfect model of Moon. It merely indicates that a non-rotating body would keep one side facing the inside of its orbit. Just like Moon does.

            What’s the rush for your becoming a braindead cult idiot? Are you that lonely?

          • Craig T says:

            Clint R says: “Upthread, he claimed that because ‘we’ve been’ to Moon, that proves it is rotating.”

            No, I said that through reflectors we left on the Moon and measurements of lunar probes we have more exact measurements of the rotation of the Moon. Measurements you won’t address.

          • Clint R says:

            Craig, you appear to be confusing “libration” with “rotation”. Moon experiences libration, but it does NOT rotate.

          • Willard says:

            > you appear to be confusing “libration” with “rotation”. Moon experiences libration

            You’re the confused one here, Pup:

            Libration provides evidence that the Moon rotates. Furthermore, any model of the Moon-Earth system needs to account for libration. Your silly ball on a string does not do that.

            You don’t have any numerical model. Repeating silly analogies over and over again won’t turn them into one. None of your 80 comments adds anything to what you said in the other thread. At least Kiddo found “but surface” to justify his 64 comments. You got NOTHING.

            Please stop trolling.

          • Clint R says:

            Thanks Dud for another example of your ignorance.

            Libration has been explained here numerous times, but you can’t understand. You’re braindead. Libration does NOT provide evidence that the Moon rotates. Libration is not even an actual motion. It only APPEARS to be a motion, as viewed from Earth, due to lunar orbit.

            Keep counting my comments. And at the end of the month, you can divide my total by 5, because I have to respond to about 5 braindead cult idiots like you, way too often.

          • Willard says:

            > Libration has been explained here numerous times

            So you keep saying, Pup. Problem is that you NEVER cite to that “explanation.” Also, please note the inelegance of your motte-and-bailey:

            [P1] In order to keep my number of comments down, I no longer respond to immature, inaccurate, incompetent trolls.

            [P2] I have to respond to about 5 braindead cult idiots like you, way too often.

            No wonder you’re an angry sock puppet.

          • Clint R says:

            Well Dud, if all you need is a citation, I can help.

            I’ll provide a citation if you’ll agree to stop commenting here for 90 days. And, to sweeten the deal, I’ll even throw in a second citation if you’ll extend to 120 days.

            What a deal.

            Of course you won’t accept because you have NO interest in learning. You’re only interested in trolling. You’re a braindead cult idiot with nothing going in your life except trolling.

          • Willard says:

            > I’ll give you a citation if

            That’s not how it works amongst grown-ups, Pup.

            The onus is on you to back up your claims.

            Just like scientists do.

            So far you made 92 comments and you contributed NOTHING.

            NOTHING.

            Not even entertainment.

        • Norman says:

          Clint R

          Not confused at all. You call people who follow science “braindead cult members” and yet you will not do a simple test to either verify or prove your position wrong. Why is that?

          A braindead cult person relies on their own opinions and will not accept the possibility they are wrong. Ken accepted he was wrong on Keppler and Newton and grew from his error (which is how science actually works, people come up with ideas they think are correct and then test and observe things to verify and are willing to accept their ideas are wrong). Why are you unwilling to do something that might take 10 minutes of your time?

          What is the issue here?

          • Clint R says:

            Norman, I don’t “call people who follow science ‘braindead cult members'”. That’s your invalid and incorrect opinion. People that deny reality and science, and passionately cling to false beliefs are “braindead cult idiots”. Now, keep your opinions out of your comments. I have no time for such nonsense.

            You are terribly confused. Your “simple test” was so poorly worded it took me a few minutes to figure out what you were doing wrong. You don’t understand orbital motion. The ball-on-a-string is “orbiting, without rotating”. You STILL don’t understand the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating”.

            Like the ball-on-a-string, when a non-rotating object “orbits”, it keeps one face toward the inside of its orbit.

            When a rotating object “orbits”, it will present all sides to the inside of the orbit.

          • RLH says:

            “When a rotating object “orbits”, it will present all sides to the inside of the orbit”

            Not if it rotates once on its axis per orbit as the Moon does.

          • Clint R says:

            Three braindead cult idiots in a row!

            Craig T finds a wikipedia page he doesn’t understand, but believes it “proves” Moon is rotating. Upthread, he claimed that because “we’ve been” to Moon, that proves it is rotating.

            Everything he sees is “proof” Moon rotates!

            Ants in the pantry — Proof Moon rotates.
            Ants not in pantry — Proof Moon rotates.

            And Norman and RLH still deny the ball-on-a-string. Neither has a clue about orbital motions, they deny reality and can’t learn.

            Three braindead cult idiots in a row. How cute.

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            A Ball on a String only represent rotation about a common center. Nothing more. It is not actually an orbit at all just a rotation around the center and that is all it represents.

            Again, my example is quite easy to understand and to accomplish. Sorry you had such a hard time with reading that is confused you. I doubt too many would be confused by what I requested for you to do.

            You tape a rubber band on top of the “orbiting” can and anchor the other part of the rubber band to a fixed point above the can. You move the can around in a circular path and rotate it as you move it in a circular path to keep the same face toward the center can. Can you understand that language? I do not know how to simplify it.

            You will find, that as you keep the face pointing inward, the rubber band winds up, the can is rotating on its axis winding up the rubber band. Please do the test before you insult me further by making totally false claims that I don not know the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating”. From you posts it seems you are the one confused. You think the ball on the string represents orbiting. Reality is it only represents rotating. The ball is rotating around the center pivot (maybe your fingers). The string and ball are one object that rotates around the center. It is not the same as an orbit. RLH has explained this to you many many times and you do not hear what he is saying.

          • Clint R says:

            Norman, your “fixed point” is nothing more than “inertial space”, or “the stars”. It can’t tell the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating”. And, neither can you.

            All of this has been explained numerous times. The ball-on-a-string is VERY easy to understand. But, you can’t understand any of it. You deny reality, and you can’t learn. You worship your cult.

            You’re just another braindead cult idiot.

          • Norman says:

            Clint R

            The anchor point is not relevant. It just fixes the axis of rotation which the rubber band represents.

            A ball-on-a-string is only used to demonstrate orbital motion. It is not designed to go beyond that and add rotation. Your use of an analogy to prove a point it is not intended to prove is not logical.

            The rubber band model will clearly show rotation of the can, the rubber band winds up.

            Rather than attempt weak mental manipulation (calling anyone who challenges you a “braindead cult idiot”) why not do real science and stop with the lame manipulations.

            The axis of rotation is not concerned about the orbit, just the rotation. You can also wind the rubber-band up by having the can in the same spot just spinning it. The rubber-band winds up the same if it is “orbiting” or sitting there rotating. Try it out and see what you get.

          • Clint R says:

            Norman, if you ramble long enough, you eventually get tangled up in your own web:

            “You can also wind the rubber-band up by having the can in the same spot just spinning it. The rubber-band winds up the same if it is “orbiting” or sitting there rotating.”

            That was my point. Your “system” can’t tell the difference between “orbiting” and “rotating”.

            But, the ball-on-a-string can tell the difference. If the same side of the ball always faces the inside of the orbit, it is NOT rotating. If the string wraps around the ball, it is rotating.

            You won’t be able to understand this, because you’re a braindead cult idiot. That’s not an insult or a “mental manipulation”. It’s reality. Your false religion is more important to you than reality. I’ve wasted enough time with you.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            norman…”A Ball on a String only represent rotation about a common center”.

            ***

            You are missing the point. The ball on a string was introduced to demonstrate that the side attached to the string always pointed to the axis of rotation and could not rotate about the centre of the ball. It’s the same for the Moon. If it requires the same side to point to the Earth the Moon cannot possibly rotate about its axis.

          • RLH says:

            It has been admitted by all that a ball-on-a-string is NOT an example of how the Moon orbits the Earth.

        • Craig T says:

          “Craig, did you find another link you don’t understand?”

          Evidently I found another link you refuse to understand. Christos said “Maybe, if there is an observed the Moon’s axis orientation change, maybe it is an argument for the Moon’s axial rotation.” The orientation of the Moon’s rotational axis precesses in a 18.6 year cycle.

          “We know Moon is not rotating because we see only one side of it.”

          Actually we know that the Moon rotates because we see slightly different parts of the moon over its orbit. Since the axis it rotates on is not perpendicular to its orbital plane we see farther north regions of the Moon at one point in the orbit and farther south two weeks later.

          I’m sure you’ll insult me again and rattle on about balls on a string, but that doesn’t explain away 300 years of lunar observation.

          • Clint R says:

            Craig, your adherence to a false religion is both amusing and disconcerting. You are so braindead you cannot think for yourself. And, you probably see that as an insult, but it’s the truth. I have no interest in insulting you. I do have an interest in people learning to think for themselves, without a religious devotion to “institutions”.

            “Actually we know that the Moon rotates…”

            Wrong. You BELIEVE Moon rotates. That’s your BELIEF.

            “…because we see slightly different parts of the moon over its orbit.”

            We see different parts of Moon due to libration, which is due to Moon’s elliptical and tilted orbit. You don’t understand, so you just resort to your false beliefs, again. That ain’t science.

            “I’m sure you’ll…rattle on about balls on a string, but that doesn’t explain away 300 years of lunar observation.”

            The “ball-on-a-string” is the science you must throw away to cling to your false religion. We know from Newton that an orbiting body, with no axial rotation, would keep the same side facing the inside of its orbit. The ball-on-a-string is a model of that motion. In a simple circular orbit, there are only two vectors acting on the orbiting body. One is due to gravity, and one is due to the linear momentum. The resultant of the two vectors steers the body. Since the vectors act on center of mass, there is NO torque applied. The body is steered to a new direction. The body changes direction, it does NOT rotate. A realistic analogy is a train on a curved track. The train changes direction due to the track, but it is NOT rotating about its axis. If it rotated about its axis, it would be derailed.

            You don’t like simple analogies like the ball-on-a-string and train, because they easily debunk your false beliefs.

          • Ball4 says:

            “The train changes direction due to the track…”

            Thus the train rotates on its own axis wrt to the train room. Or no it doesn’t change direction wrt to the track because it always points in the direction of the track or it would be derailed. Clint R avoids telling the reader the relative motion basis in order to provide continuous entertainment.

          • Clint R says:

            Ball4, thanks for being such a perfect example of a braindead cult idiot.

            You always make me look so good by comparison.

          • Ball4 says:

            Like a good entertainer Clint. Keep up the good entertaining comments; only by getting the physics right does Clint cease to be a good blog laughing stock.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      christos…”if there is an observed the Moons axis orientation change, maybe it is an argument for the Moons axial rotation”.

      ***

      I proved to you, using math that a mechanical engineer should understand, that it is not possible for the Moon to rotate on a local axis. Maybe the translation to Greek is not good.

      -near-side = face of Moon always facing the Earth.
      -far-side = face of Moon on opposite side of Moon from near-side.

      -Draw radial line (radius) from centre of Earth through centre of Moon.

      -Radial line passes through near-side, centre of Moon, and far-side.

      -draw perpendicular lines where radial line meets near-side, centre, and far-side.

      -Each perpendicular line represents a tangent line to a circle, and each circle is concentric. Also, each perpendicular line is ALWAYS parallel at each point in the orbit.

      -the near-side must always point toward the Earth, therefore it is not possible for the near side to rotate through the required 360 degrees to complete one rotation since all three points are moving parallel to each other.

      -the three perpendicular lines represent curvilinear translation, which explains why the near-side orientation changes through 360 degrees.

  69. TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

    Gordon Robertson at 6:36 PM
    “Does it not strike you as somewhat pathetic”

    Since you asked what strikes me as pathetic, your request to NASA will have to wait another 10 years; it’s just not a priority!

    New Report Charts Path for Next Decade

    • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

      this is pathetic: referencing news article in a political newsmagazine in “support” of a false claim about CO2 from ice cores.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        maguff…”this is pathetic: referencing news article in a political newsmagazine in support of a false claim about CO2 from ice cores”.

        ***

        Maguff shoots the messenger, misses the scientific article. Are all you alarmists that dense?

        • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

          Gordon Robertson at 4:13 PM

          Maguff shoots the messenger, misses the scientific article. Are all you alarmists that dense?

          Irony detected!

  70. stephen p anderson says:

    With these recent breakthroughs in fusion technology, you leftists are going to need to look for a new boogeyman. How about water?

  71. Gordon Robertson says:

    craig …”The airliner flying at 35,000 feet has only linear momentum and is trying to fly with linear translation.

    So why do they bother to place engines under the wings?

    An airliner has forward thrust to keep it moving and airborne. Remove that thrust and it could be pointing in any direction when it hits the ground. Gravity acts on the center of mass and airliners are moving far too slow to make it around the curvature of the Earth by momentum alone”.

    ***

    I advise you to think before you reply.

    Engine thrust moves the wing surface against air, supplying lift. The more thrust applied horizontally, the greater the lift. The lift acts in the opposite direction to gravity, and if the engine thrust is strong enough, the lift and gravity will be in equilibrium.

    “Airliners are moving far too slow to make it around the curvature of the Earth by momentum alone”???????????????

    This sounds a lot like the warning offered to Columbus that his ships would sail off the edge of the flat Earth.

    You know nothing about the aerodynamics of aircraft yet you are willing to make a fool of yourself with such stupid statements.

    How does the Moon negotiate the curvature of the Earth, with no engines, and only a constant linear momentum?

    • Craig T says:

      This is my 3rd attempt to post a response. If it shows up I’ll write more.

      • Entropic man says:

        This site has some quirks.

        For example, words like abs*orb*tion are anathema.

        So is any comment in which the letter c directly follows the letter d. Links to the National Sea Ice Data Centre are rejected because their acronym is NSID*C.

        It is recommended to copy each comment before you post it. If it is rejected you can them.post it one paragraph at a time until you find the problem.

        Even with this you can be blocked for hours for no apparent reason. This site is badly overdue for maintainable.

    • Craig T says:

      “How does the Moon negotiate the curvature of the Earth, with no engines, and only a constant linear momentum?”

  72. Gordon Robertson says:

    stephen…”The left hates the free market. They are the masterminds. They want and feel theyre entitled to control and regulate nature in the name of Nature. That is psychopathic and pathological”.

    ***

    I think it’s far more sinister than that. We have definite movements within governments, driven by special interest groups, that go far beyond the mandates given to governments after elections. In other words, the governments have their own agendas.

    Politicians have admitted they don’t care if the science is right or not, they are acting based on what they BELIEVE is right. That applies to global warming/climate change and to the covid propaganda. Biden is not mandating vaccines for businesses because there is scientific evidence to back him, he is doing it because he believes it is right based on propaganda from the World Health Organization.

    To me, this has nothing to do with Left or Right, it is all about politically-correct idiots shoving their belief system down the throats of others. Some right-wingers are just as bad, with clowns like Schwarzeneggar, acting like his Nazi dad, and telling people to shut up and take the vaccine. Shades of Dr. Mengeles, experimenting on people without their choice.

    The climate conference in Glasgow has nothing to do with science. It’s about idiots with an agenda. You can’t claim they are all left-wingers because Boris Hitler, the UK PM, was there supporting the idiocy. He is as right as Attila the Hun. In fact, one of his predecessors, Margaret Thatcher started it all, convincing the UN to form the IPCC.

    The IPCC has been driven by ideological zealots and unvalidated climate models. They have no interest in science, only a zealous belief system aimed at world governance. Since the 1960s, the UN have been trying to implement a global taxation system aimed at equalizing the financial situation between wealthier and poorer countries.

    The irony is the UN has no interest in helping poor countries like Afghanistan when they are overrun by the Taliban. The Taliban have been around for 150 years and no nation or organization has tried seriously to clean them up. They have sent in token forces who have all gotten their butts kicked, not because the soldiers couldn’t do the job, because they lacked the support and numbers they require.

    Again, you can’t claim it is simply a Left Wing plot. Some of the people driving the movement are wealthy right-wingers and a principle movers was Maurice Strong, a Canadian billionaire who considered himself both a capitalist and a socialist.

    I would say this is more about people with severe mental problems. They are unable to distinguish reality from fantasy and they want to impose their fantasies on the rest of us.

    • stephen p anderson says:

      Gordo,
      As I’ve explained before, Nazis weren’t right. they were left. Read their party platform-25 points. Nothing conservative about it.

      • Entropic man says:

        It can be hard to tell.Minimum state control comes from the centre. As you move to the Left or Right state control increases. Communism is state control in the name of the people and fascism state control in the name of the state. Authoritarianism is characteristic of both.

        Nazism had the command economy usually seen on either extreme and the extreme racism usually seen on the far Right.

        • Willard says:

          Sometimes it’s quite easy to tell:

          The Great Depression spurred State ownership in Western capitalist countries. Germany was no exception; the last governments of the Weimar Republic took over firms in diverse sectors. Later, the Nazi regime transferred public ownership and public services to the private sector. In doing so, they went against the mainstream trends in the Western capitalist countries, none of which systematically reprivatized firms during the 1930s. Privatization in Nazi Germany was also unique in transferring to private hands the delivery of public services previously provided by government. The firms and the services transferred to private ownership belonged to diverse sectors. Privatization was part of an intentional policy with multiple objectives and was not ideologically driven. As in many recent privatizations, particularly within the European Union, strong financial restrictions were a central motivation. In addition, privatization was used as a political tool to enhance support for the government and for the Nazi Party.

          http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf

          Troglodytes will troglodyte.

    • Hristo says:

      WOW! LOL! WTF dude! How comes threre are so many “extra” dead people if COVID was not dangerous and deadly, especially for the old people?

      As an ordinary idiot, you believe that there is somebody repsonsible for the world (like UN, WHO or the jews). BAD news – people themselves are responsible.

      And here is your idiotic point, summing it up ” The Taliban have been around for 150 years and no nation or organization has tried seriously to clean them up. ”

      There were the British, USSR and now USA – all tried hard, but the people did not give up, you cannot just kill them. It does not work that way. Would it help if we kill all antivaxers?

      • Entropic man says:

        “Would it help if we kill all antivaxers? ”

        No need. If you are foolish or gullible enough to be an Anti-vaxxer, you are more likely to be infected and and more likely to die of Covid-19.

        Thnk of it as evolution in action.

    • Nate says:

      “The left hates the free market. They are the masterminds.”

      The morass in Washington these last few months shows that the Left are hardly ‘masterminds’, Stephen.

    • gbaikie says:

      The biggest problem facing humankind is politicians.
      Always has been, always will be.
      One can say politics is important. But if was not vaguely
      important, it’s paradise.
      One can say US constitution was designed to balance evil political
      players, so as to allow the people to do what is important- or freedom to people, conflict and competition in the political realm.
      Giving politicians no opposition is ruin.
      Power corrupts, absolute power, corrupt absolutely.
      Satan was trying to sell absolute power to Jesus {which would be been his ruin].
      Do you think any pol is a better creature than Jesus Christ?
      No pol can save you.
      All pols want you to depend upon them, and when their lips move, they are lying.
      Generally, I personally like the pols that amuses me the most with their lying.
      And I and would like to vote for politician who was an AI or a space alien.

      • Clint R says:

        “The biggest problem facing humankind is politicians. Always has been, always will be.”

        Exactly, gbaikie!

        The Founding Fathers expected a responsible press to put a limit on the level of corruption. That’s why “freedom of the press”, “freedom of expression”, and “freedom of speech” were so protected.

        But, “the press” is now controlled by corrupt corporations. Cable news is big money, and power. The Internet offered some hope, but now Google, Facebook, and Youtube are all into heavy censorship. Citizens are expected to be sheep.

        It’s not good….

      • Nate says:

        “But, ‘the press’ is now controlled by corrupt corporations. Cable news is big money, and power. ”

        Agree with you there.

        “The Internet offered some hope, but now Google, Facebook, and Youtube are all into heavy censorship.”

        When a government, like China, blocks critical information on these sites in China, that is censorship.

        When these sites block content, that is not censorship. That is a publisher, a private company, choosing to publish your content or not.

        Just as if I send my book to a publisher and they elect not to publish it, cuz maybe it sucks. Its their choice.

        • gbaikie says:

          You have to view it, thru the lens of monopolies.
          Monopolies have viewed in relation to their effects on
          politics/government.
          Or it’s not to confused with their market share- but one say it’s
          a “worry” if one company sells all washing machines or whatever.

          Let’s take SpaceX, and the apparent magical Starship. {which I like}
          I don’t fear the SpaceX will become the monopoly on Earth’s rocket launch. And one could say, just the SpaceX’s Falcon rocket represent a threat in terms of control all rocket launches.
          And Musk does “work with politicians”. And Musk is certainly a political animal.
          But this it’s not saying much.
          And one can say we have already had monopolies involved- NASA itself has been monopoly, and for years prevented rocket development, because NASA wanted all American payloads to use the Shuttle- so passed laws and had policies. That is a monopoly.
          But monopolies don’t have to be one company- US three automaker were monopolies, and mainly Japanese automaker, did a lot to break that monopoly. But in terms recently, US taxpayer has been bailing them out. And we the idea that some companies are “too big, to fail”. That is that is a sign of monopolies- the government “supporting them” or they are creatures of the government is where get the problem.
          So, monopolies are the connection to government, rather how many washing machines to make.
          [And if Musk wants to be ruler of Mars- that is the Martians, problem:)]

  73. Gordon Robertson says:

    rlh…”A ball-on-a-string is only relevant to a ball-on-a-string”.

    ***

    You sound like the type who saves balls of string along with a vast newspaper collection. Your OCD has you repeating your mantra about a ball-on-a-string, despite attempts to explain the significance of the BOAS.

  74. Willard says:

    > If it requires the same side to point to the Earth the Moon cannot possibly rotate about its axis.

    C’mon, Gordo.

    An object can spin while always facing you by synchronizing its spin to its orbit around you.

    The only time you could confuse that movement to an orbit without spin is if you consider the object from a static and first-person perspective.

    The Earth moves and the world does not revolve around you.

  75. Craig T says:

    Well this has been fun in a popping bubble wrap sort of way but I need to stop wasting time. The Oceanic Nino Index has been negative for the last 17 months yet the lower troposphere is 0.37C over the average for the last 30 years. I’ll check back in after the next El Nino and see how the same old arguments are going.

  76. The planet radiative energy balance is not a function of rotation.
    And the Radiative
    Energy in = Energy out

    When planet surface is solar irradiated the EM energy interacts with matter. On that very instant the following happens:
    SW Reflection, IR Emission, and Heat Accumulation.

    1). The reflected portion goes out on the same very instant solar flux hits the surface.

    2). The rest is TRANSFORMED into IR Emission and HEAT Accumulation.

    The transformed into IR emission part also goes out on the same instant solar flux hits the surface.

    3). The fraction which is transformed into HEAT gets accumulated in the inner layers.
    And that is the energy which is IR emitted during the night.

    When rotating faster, the fraction of energy accumulated in inner layers is larger, than for the slower rotation.
    And that is what makes the faster rotating planets warmer.

    https://www.cristos-vournas.com

    • Ball4 says:

      Christos, when rotating slower, the day/night temperature range is higher than when rotating faster. It is because the S-B law is way non-linear that the avg. temperature varies due rotation speed per Dr. Spencer’s explanation.

      The planetary equilibrium temperature however does not change with rotation speed. This should tell you properly use equilibrium temperature (Tse,Te) not improper avg. day/night temperature to better understand planetary energy balances.

      • Ball4
        “The planetary equilibrium temperature however does not change with rotation speed. This should tell you properly use equilibrium temperature (Tse,Te) not improper avg. day/night temperature to better understand planetary energy balances.”

        What do you mean by “The planetary equilibrium temperature”? Is it the non existent mathematical abstraction temperature?

        https://www.cristos-vournas.com

        • Ball4 says:

          No, it is the measured effective temperature. You can tell it is equilibrium temperature because it doesn’t change day/night like avg. temperature does. As the planet spins faster, the day/night temperature range decreases and the avg. T approaches equilibrium temperature.

    • Clint R says:

      For two planets, equal in every way except rotation rate, the one with the faster rate will have a higher equilibrium temperature.

      Christos is correct. Ball4 is as braindead as always.

    • Ball4
      “No, it is the measured effective temperature. You can tell it is equilibrium temperature because it doesn’t change day/night like avg. temperature does. As the planet spins faster, the day/night temperature range decreases and the avg. T approaches equilibrium temperature.”

      “No Clint, the one with the faster rotation rate will have a higher average temperature approaching both planet’s equilibrium temperature:

      http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/09/the-faster-a-planet-rotates-the-warmer-its-average-temperature/

      Ball4, you say 255 K is planet Earth measured effective temperature. Also you say the planet equilibrium temperature is the highest temperature the planet without-atmosphere could approach due to its very fast rotational spin.

      I do not agree with that, but assuming you are right, and 255 K is planet Earth measured effective temperature.
      Since it is already very much precisely measured, you should not have any doubt about the rightness of the following:
      Earth rotational spin is fast enough to approach Earth without-atmosphere equilibrium temperature (S-B blackbody effective temperature).

      https://www.cristos-vournas.com

      • Ball4 says:

        Christos, Earth without atm. (moon-like) equilibrium temperature is not known nor do I recall reading a decent effort to estimate what that temperature would be or how deep in the ground it would occur; maybe you can identify a source for me. However, you should not have any doubt that the faster Earth without atm. rotates, the warmer its avg. temperature – approaching a limit.

        Also, this article may help you find what you are looking for in comparing avg. temperature without atm. at earthen and lunar inertial spin rates:

        http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/09/errors-in-estimating-earths-no-atmosphere-average-temperature/

        • Ball4
          “…you should not have any doubt that the faster Earth without atm. rotates, the warmer its avg. temperature approaching a limit.”

          Yes, for N=1 rotation/day Earth without atm. avg. temperature is 288K.

          https://www.cristos-vournas.com

          • Ball4 says:

            Earth without atm. avg. temperature can’t be 288K Christos. The Earth is in the same solar orbit as our moon without atm. which has a reasonably well measured avg. equatorial temperature of 210K. The lunar without atm. equatorial equilibrium temperature is reasonably well determined at 240K.

          • stephen p anderson says:

            They have different spins. It’s in his equation.

          • Ball4 says:

            Celestial object spin matters for avg. temperature (see Dr. Spencer’s articles); spin does not matter for equilibrium temperature. Spin can’t get the avg. temperature above the equilibrium temperature since avg. T converges to equilibrium T as spin rate increases.

    • Ball4

      You refer to the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law.
      It is about a blackbody surface previously uniformly warmed to 288 K and the S-B equation radiant energy emission is 390 W/m2.

      What we have with planets’ surfaces is the Solar Irradiation’s interaction with MATTER. It is a very much different thing compared to an already previously and uniformly warmed body.

      The solar irradiated MATTER does not accumulate the entire amount of the not reflected portion of incident solar flux. MATTER does not get warmed first, and emit after. It is a radiation-matter interaction process.

      Planet accumulates only a fraction of the not reflected portion of incident EM energy, because, at the same exactly moment, the irradiated surface emits IR EM energy. It is a process which excludes the possibility for the entire not reflected EM energy to become accumulated in total.

      The not reflected portion of the incident solar flux cannot get entirely accumulated by the sunlit side of the planetary surface.

      https://www.cristos-vournas.com

  77. Hristo says:

    Again and again – up in the title +0.37, but with small font below is noted that reference is not from the 80’s, but from 1990-2020. And if taken from 1980-1990 anomaly would be close to 1deg. Is that TOO embarrassing?

    I guess the explanation with reference will vanish little by little, as it has changed already. That is a BAD result presentation, DOC.

    And I am ashamed that once I thought you have some integrity.

    • RLH says:

      So the FACT that it has been much higher before, and before the adjustment to the reference period at that, doesn’t factor into your observations at all.

      • Hristo says:

        It factors to the title. That was my point. And assuming that at least humans are partially responsible for the temperature increase, the reference should be taken the oldest possible where human contribution is the smallest.

        Anyhow, see you in the next month post

        • RLH says:

          The question is if humans (and CO2) are responsible for the majority or the minority of the temperature increases in the last 60 years. As you say, we will see in the future.

          • Hristo says:

            Dude, learn to read with some understanding.

            What I meant is that I will put same comment next month. There is nothing that will change within a month.

    • Mark B says:

      Hristo says:

      Again and again – up in the title +0.37, but with small font below is noted that reference is not from the 80’s, but from 1990-2020. And if taken from 1980-1990 anomaly would be close to 1deg. Is that TOO embarrassing?

      In fairness, there are legitimate reasons to use the most recent decades as a baseline for computing anomalies, namely that the statistics of the baseline may be more representative of the current climate than an older baseline. The choice depends on whether one is focused on more recent variation or longer term climatic shifts.

      As a case in point, a significant driver of September’s uptick was anomalous warmth in the Arctic attributable to more open water than typical of the 1990-2020 baseline, but it would have been relatively more dramatic against a 1980-2010 baseline.

      Finally, 0.58 C (linear trend * duration of series) rather than “close to 1 deg” is a more defensible estimate of the net rise for the UAH TLT series.

      • Mark B says:

        To expand on the October anomaly statement, October has the largest increase in temperature anomaly of any month. For the UAH record, the monthly growth is as follows:

        Month of year : Anomaly (deg C)
        1 : 0.56
        2 : 0.65
        3 : 0.51
        4 : 0.68
        5 : 0.56
        6 : 0.50
        7 : 0.47
        8 : 0.54
        9 : 0.52
        10 : 0.70
        11 : 0.69
        12 : 0.60

        • E. Swanson says:

          RLH, What does your graph have to do with climate change? Your plot removes the long term trend, which is the best indicator of long term changes in temperature.

        • Entropic man says:

          Not really a great help.

          From other data I estimate the average month on previous year’s month change as 0.06C with 95% confidence limits of +/-0.5C.

          The uncertainty is so much larger than the average that you won’t get any useful trend data.

          If you want a hypothesis to test, the physics leads one to expect nights to warm faster than days, high latitudes to warm faster than low latitudes and Winters to warm faster than Summers.

          Perhaps Mark B or yourself yourself could test to see if there’s a significant seasonal difference?

          I tried a manual plot of Mark B’s data. Inspection suggest a lower rate of warming in the Summer, but it’s not compelling.

          • RLH says:

            It is interesting that Berkley Earth (or its supporters) conclude that there is no UHI, yet every weatherman says that it is colder in the countryside than the cities on a regular basis.

          • bdgwx says:

            RLH,

            Berkeley Earth did not say that there is no UHI.

            What they said is that there is no UHI bias on the global mean temperature from 1950 to 2010. More precisely they said the UHI bias is -0.10 +/- 0.24 C/century.

            It is important to understand that there is a difference between the UHI effect itself and the bias that it may or may not induce on global mean temperature measurements. UHI itself always has a positive influence on urban temperatures. But the UHI bias on the global mean temperature could be positive, neutral, or even negative depending on the spatial and temporal averaging process, the spatial arrangement of rural vs urban stations, and the temporal evolution of urban vs rural stations.

            It’s worth repeating. The UHI effect is NOT equivalent to the UHI bias.

          • RLH says:

            If UHI exists, as you say, then it must have developed deeper over time. That WILL introduce a bias in long term trends.

            In 1950 the average house numbers and internal temperatures were considerably different to those in 2010 in all urban areas. Those extra numbers and internally heated contents that will leak into the surroundings produces a bias/trend over that time period.

            Unless you know different of course.

          • RLH says:

            Please note that Berkley Earth’s ‘averaging’ process for UHI bears a striking resemblance to adaptive 2d averaging (filtering) as applied to images.

          • Entropic man says:

            And insulation has improved. It now takes considerably less energy to hear a house than in 1950. This will reduce UHI.

          • bdgwx says:

            The positive UHI bias prior to 1950 is the result of predominately rural grid cells being overweight on urban stations. As the rural station count increased relative to the urban station count, as urban stations began moving away from city centers to the airport locations where UHI is slightly less, and as urbanization rates decreased, the UHI bias transitioned from positive to mostly neutral and perhaps even slightly negative.

          • Mark B says:

            Entropic man says: . . . test to see if there’s a significant seasonal difference?
            Assuming I done this more or less correctly, here’s some trend / trend uncertainty estimates.

            I tested with raw UAH TLT data and, in an attempt to reduce uncertainty, with UAH TLT adjusted as per Foster/Rahmstorf 2011. The latter uses multiple regression to estimate and remove the signal component attributable to El Nino (MEIv2), Aerosol Optical Density (AOD “volcanoes”), and Total Solar Irradiance (TSI).

            “All months” results as
            adj_trend, adj_2sigma, raw_trend, raw_2sigma
            0.133, 0.018, 0.134, 0.051

            “Trend by month” as
            index, start_month, adj_trend, adj_2sigma, raw_trend, raw_2sigma

            0, 1979.583, 0.127, 0.035, 0.126, 0.041
            1, 1979.667, 0.117, 0.035, 0.122, 0.041
            2, 1979.750, 0.162, 0.034, 0.163, 0.046
            3, 1979.833, 0.162, 0.025, 0.157, 0.041
            4, 1979.917, 0.139, 0.031, 0.141, 0.035
            5, 1980.000, 0.127, 0.029, 0.126, 0.042
            6, 1980.083, 0.149, 0.036, 0.149, 0.053
            7, 1980.167, 0.152, 0.043, 0.158, 0.062
            8, 1980.250, 0.127, 0.038, 0.129, 0.056
            9, 1980.333, 0.114, 0.033, 0.115, 0.057
            10, 1980.417, 0.109, 0.040, 0.113, 0.050
            11, 1980.500, 0.106, 0.037, 0.106, 0.047

          • RLH says:

            Regardless of how much insulation has improved that just slows the rate of transmission of internal to external temperatures. It cannot be removed entirely. And that takes no account of the heat generated ‘up the chimney’ to get it to 20C (approximately) in the first place.

            It takes around 24 hours for a house with no heating at all to reduce to the ambient.

          • RLH says:

            “”All months” results ”

            Why do you persists in using incorrect statistics on monthly over annual temperatures when they are all U-shaped in distributions over the year?

            All monthly data will show that Winter and Summer have nearly flat outcomes which Spring and Autumn will have large rises and falls.

            https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/uscrn-temps-since-2016.jpg

          • RLH says:

            “UHI bias transitioned from positive to mostly neutral and perhaps even slightly negative”

            Year on year but not decade on decade or 60 years on 60 years.

            The actual change each year is quite small, each decade is larger and each 60 years larger still.

            Roughly in line with the perceived hockey stick graph of global temperatures I suggest.

  78. Martin says:

    Amazing…. Some here still can’t grasp one simple fact:
    The moon (or The Moon ) does not rotate on any axis compared to the Earth.
    I am starting to believe Clint is right about some type of Cult followers out there believing that it does. there is zero evidence (not calling for proofs..just evidence). There is no scientific way possible that an object that always faces the Earth ..year in …year out is actually spinning on it’s axis in relation to the earth.

    I find it sad how smart folks try their darnedest to use a POV of some observer above. Like the coin attempt… they try to make the spin references more from the POV of the observer and not that of the “earth coin” – can’t have it both ways… the POV is from the earth and if they only thought it through and took the simple POV of the Earth they then lose their example.
    We have some really great minds on this board… and stubborn too. It is already shown that the MOON does NOT spin on any axis in relation to the Earth…. but it is amusing to watch the mental gymnastics of some try to claim otherwise.

    • Entropic man says:

      The problem is not that the non-spinners claim that the Moon does not rotate relative to the Earth. That is trivially true.

      The problem is their claim that the Moon is not rotating at all, in any reference frame.

      • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

        The problem with you, Entropic Man, is that you are shown the limitations of using an inertial reference frame in discerning axes of rotation (see the Mt. Everest example and discussion further upthread)…you don’t have any decent response at the time, and then you just disappear. Then you reappear, a few days later, happy to ignore every single word that’s been said, and repeating your same misunderstandings.

        • Entropic man says:

          I was thinking about your comments upthread.

          “Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis. It is rotating about the Earths axis, same as every other part of the Earthbut it is not rotating on its own axis. ”

          So the Earth as a whole is rotating on its own axis while every part of it is rotating around an external axis.

          Do I detect a paradox?

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            No. Every part of the Earth is rotating about the Earth’s axis. Why are you people so stupid?

          • Entropic man says:

            Just following a train of logic.

            Now, how do we distinguish between an object which is rotating around the Earth’s axis and an object which is rotating around its own axis?

            Objects discussed in this context have included the Earth, the Moon, Mt Everest, Newton’s cannonball, the ISS, the Hubble telescope, and various other Earth orbit and interplanetary spacecraft.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Well, if the object is on the Earth, and rotating on its own axis (like a MGR, or a record on a turntable), then that object is rotating about both the Earth’s axis and on its own axis. If the object is not rotating on its own axis (like Mt. Everest) then the object is only rotating about the Earth’s axis.

    • Clint R says:

      Martin, I think more and more people are getting tired of this never-ending discussion about Moon.

      But, the long process may have served a purpose. We now know many of the people commenting here have little knowledge of physics or science. They have no interest in learning. Even after long explanations by me, and several others, they remain completely uneducated about:

      *the difference between orbiting (revolving) and rotating (spinning)
      *the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string
      *lunar libration
      *lunar “tidal locking” being nonsense
      *angular momentum (Moon has none)
      *orbital motion not being compatible with kinematics
      *other simple analogies like a racehorse (or train) on an oval track, a “chalk circle” on a merry-go-round, etc.

      These are not difficult concepts to understand. I could probably explain all 7 concepts to an average high school student in less than 2 hours. Several others here could do the same. The science is just not that complicted.

      But, after all this time, not one of the “braindead cult idiots” has been able to understand even one of the concepts! NOT ONE! They absolutely can not learn.

      So when the discussion changes back to the AGW nonsense, we can expect the same thing from them. At least braindead cult idiots are consistent….

      • Martin says:

        Clint – I agree that most here are quite worn over this axil spin ‘discussion’ of the moon. I do think that there have been some really good points that have helped offer some more clarity.

        But I now have seen that some won’t allow common sense science interfere with a viewpoint or agenda that one can hold. I see this too with AGW-ist thought. But I also can see a great deal many more on this board are by far level headed about data.
        I suppose that once one can drop their ego and/or agenda it makes for clearer conversation but maybe clear conversation is not the goal. Blogs like this are truly a great source for some psych Graduate thesis papers

      • bobdroege says:

        Clint R,

        Before you work on explaining those concepts, perhaps you should work on your counting skillz.

        By the way, if you claim that the Moon has no angular momentum, that means you are claiming the Moon is neither revolving around the Earth, nor rotating on its axis.

        Question, rhetorical of course,

        Are you really that stupid?

      • Nate says:

        Martin,

        Yes relative to Earth the Moon appears not to spin. But are you an Earthist?

        I think has been explained to you already. For astronomy, and anyone sending probes into space and trying to land them on the Moon, what matters is its spin rate relative to the rest frame, ie the stars.

        Even DREMT agrees that the Moon is rotating wrt the stars.

        • martin says:

          Nate – I’m really a moonist. but you can keep on keeping on with your differing frames of references… seems that the moon spins when different frames of references are injected (like your moony landing)….but as shown and somewhat accepted by you… the moon does not spin on it’s axis in reference to the Earth. that much you have to just open up and admit. I don’t really care much about your shuttle to the moon needing to adjust things… just stick to the point of Earth to moon.

          • RLH says:

            The Moon rotates once on its axis per orbit of the Earth wrt to a gyro at its poles (and hence the fixed stars).

          • Nate says:

            Martin,

            “moon does not spin on it’s axis in reference to the Earth. that much you have to just open up and admit.”

            And from my car’s 65 mph perspective, cars on the highway arent moving.

            And from Earth, Mars appears to orbit normally, then takes a U-turn and goes backward, in retrograde for awhile, before another u-turn and orbits normally again.

            So does that mean Mars orbit is actually something drawn with a spirograph?

            No of course not. Copernicus explained all that. Then Kepler. Then Newton explained it with Gravity and his laws of motion, and so on.

            Science has advanced since 1543. Did we leave you behind?

    • Willard says:

      > The moon (or The Moon ) does not rotate on any axis compared to the Earth

      That’s not the claim made by the Moon Dragon cranks you’re brown nosing, Martin.

      Not even a nice try.

  79. TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

    Science says:

    This is clear from the first law of motion and book 1, prop. 66, corol. 22.
    With respect to the fixed stars Jupiter revolves in 9h56m, Mars in 24h39m, Venus in about 23 hours, the earth in 23h56m, the sun in 25-1/2 days, and the moon in 27d7h43m. That these things are so is clear from phenomena. […]Now, since a lunar day (the moon revolving uniformly about its own axis) is a month long [i.e., is equal to a lunar month, the periodic time of the moon’s revolution in its orbit], the same face of the moon will always very nearly look in the direction of the further focus of its orbit, and therefore will deviate from the earth on one side or the other according to the situation of that focus[…]
    Isaac Newton. Proposition 17. Theorem 15. The Principia, 1687.

    Cassini’s laws, three empirical rules that accurately describe the rotation of the Moon, formulated in 1693 by Gian Domenico Cassini. They are:
    (1) the Moon rotates uniformly about its own axis once in the same time that it takes to revolve around the Earth;
    (2) the Moon’s equator is tilted at a constant angle (about 1°32′ of arc) to the ecliptic, the plane of Earth’s orbit around the Sun; and
    (3) the ascending node of the lunar orbit always coincides with the descending node of the lunar equator. As a consequence of the third law, the north pole of the Moon as projected on the sky, the north pole of the ecliptic, and the north pole of the lunar orbit all lie close to one another on a great circle.
    Encyclopedia Britannica (The world standard in knowledge since 1768)

    Q: Does the Moon rotate?
    A: Yes. The time it takes for the Moon to rotate once around 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.
    If the Moon did not rotate on its axis at all, or if it rotated at any other rate, then we would see different sides of the Moon throughout the month.
    NASA

    • Clint R says:

      TM, is the wooden horse on a merry-go-round actually rotating about its axis?

      • Ball4 says:

        … wrt to the mgr or wrt to the room in which the mgr is contained?

        • Clint R says:

          See how the braindead cult idiots work?

          • Ball4 says:

            No. Please explain.

          • Ball4 says:

            Using Tyson’s clip to explain:

            Q: Does the horse on mgr rotate wrt to the mgr?
            A: No. The hobby horse is rigidly attached to the mgr.

            Q: Does the horse on mgr rotate wrt to the room in which rotating mgr is contained?

            A: Yes. The time it takes for the rigidly attached hobby horse to rotate once around its axis is equal to the time it takes for the horse to orbit once around the mgr center. This keeps the same side of the horse facing towards mgr center throughout one mgr rotation.
            If the horse was attached such that it did not rotate on its axis at all wrt to the room, or if it rotated at any other rate wrt to the room, then onlookers at the mgr center would see different sides of the horse throughout each mgr rotation.

          • Clint R says:

            Your actions explain better than I can, braindead4.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Ball4 demonstrates once again that he does not understand rotation.

          • Ball4 says:

            Thanks Clint R. Now you can explain to DREMT.

          • Clint R says:

            Not necessary. DREMT already knows you’re a braindead cult idiot, addicted to trolling.

          • Ball4 says:

            Then I’ve already explained it better for DREMT than Clint R admits Clint can explain it, so not necessary.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            Yes, Clint R, Ball4 is just another relentless, sociopathic troll.

          • Willard says:

            That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.

  80. TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

    House rules (proposed)

    When citing sources with respect to scientific discussions, use only technically reputable sources.
    Your own blog does not count as a technically reputable source of information on climate science.
    Refrain from attacks, trolling (posting inflammatory, insincere, digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages) or cyber-bullying.
    This blog should stimulate conversation and trigger the exchange of information (technical, career-related) not create contention. Contradictory opinions are of course welcomed, but should always be thoughtful and respectful, rather than emotional, impulsive or anger-driven.

    • Clint R says:

      Sources that violate the Scientific Method, or violate the Laws of Phyics, are NOT “technically reputable sources”.

      That means the Cassini “laws” are NOT “Laws”, for example.

    • Entropic man says:

      Muffin

      Rules I try to operate by. Interestingly I find that the scientific credibility of most commentators here correlates positively with their willingness to provide peer-reviewed evidence and negatively with their use of insults.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      maguff…you have already broken your proposed rules. You also changed your nym. Since changing it, posters like Snape have disappeared.

      You are also arrogant, talking down your nose to other posters without corroborating your arrogance.

      Your approach is typical of cyber-bullies: quote only sites that agree with you and ad hom any post that is not from your approved site. You criticize sites who publish papers from bona fide scientists who disagree with your belief-system, in essence, shooting the messenger.

      That’s how Michael Mann got inducted into the National Academy of Science. His cyber-bully alarmist friends infiltrated NAS, took it over, and incorrectly inducted him as a luminary who deserved that honour.

      On the other hand, a real scientist like Dr. Peter Duesberg was inducted as the youngest person of his era ever inducted. That was well before alarmist weenies shanghied NAS, when an induction meant something. Subsequently, a brilliant scientist like Duesberg was villifed for claiming HIV could not cause AIDS. Much later, the scientist credited with discovering HIV, now agrees with him.

      • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

        Gordon Robertson at 8:41 PM

        “You are also arrogant, talking down your nose to other posters without corroborating your arrogance.”

        I can’t dumb down my speech, that would be disingenuous and condescending.

        “Your approach is typical of cyber-bullies: quote only sites that agree with you”

        I can’t do your research for you. The way it works is I support my case and you support yours.

        “and ad hom any post that is not from your approved site”

        I respond appropriately to tone.

        The rest of your comment is hereby duly noted.

  81. TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

    On February 18, 1679, Cassini presented to the Academy of Paris his “Chart de la Lune”, that is, the Map of the Moon, which was the first scientific map of our satellite. Engraved on a copper plate the following year by Jean Patigny, it is the result of an observational research program which lasted for nine years. This masterpiece remained unmatched in accuracy and precision until the 19th century, with the introduction of photographic plates.

    In 1693, Cassini also formulated a “Nouvelle Théorie de la Lune” [New Theory of the Moon] also known as the “Three Laws of the Moon”, in which for the first time the motions are described in detail with respect to the ecliptic. It was so accurate that, more than one century later, the astronomer Pierre Simone Laplace, famous for his Celestial Mechanics, still mentioned it as one of the finest studies by Cassini.

    From:
    Giovanni Domenico Cassini – A Modern Astronomer in the 17th Century by Gabriella Bernardi. Springer International Publishing AG 2017

    • Bindidon says:

      MCGUFFIN

      You are right in some of what you wrote – with one, but unacceptable, exception: Tobias Mayer’s computation of Moon’s spin and of the inclination of its polar spin axis wrt the Ecliptic which

      – as opposed to Cassini’s unrevealed work, was published in detail in a 130 pages long treatise;

      – was by dimensions more accurate than Cassini’s results.

      *
      I have written about Mayer’s work so many times on this blog that I am beginning to believe that people like you, MCGUFFIN, never read anything written by other commentators and instead prefer to reveal your own sources – whether they are historically relevant or not.

      You probably never read even one line of Lagrange’s introduction to his theory explaining Moon’s libration with its rotation about an interior axis, and how he referred therein to the accuracy of Mayer’s work:

      https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vXxroMHi8H_GBI9925-ZUe437wZLMQeN/view

      Thanks for this highly scientific approach.

      • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

        What’s your opinion of Wepster’s book on Mayer?

        • Bindidon says:

          ” What’s your opinion of Wepster’s book on Mayer? ”

          Show here and right now the link to that book, and what you have read in it about Mayer’s lunar spin computation.

          • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

            Refrain from attacks, trolling (posting inflammatory, insincere, digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages) or cyber-bullying.

        • Bindidon says:

          MCGUFFIN

          ” Refrain from attacks, trolling (posting inflammatory, insincere, digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages) or cyber-bullying. ”

          Ha ha ha.

          Why can’t you simply answer to:

          ” Show here and right now the link to that book, and what you have read in it about Mayer’s lunar spin computation. ”

          Maybe you can’t show what you have read out of it.

          Namely because Wepster’s book is, as opposed to the dissertation it was derived of, behind paywall, and you therefore couldn’t manage to read anything of it, except the abstract?

      • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

        I wrote two paragraphs about Cassini. Which do you find objectionable?

      • TYSON MCGUFFIN says:

        No reply? I have neither the time nor the patience for games at the moment. Here’s what I think:

        (1) You have not read Wepster’s book.

        (2) There is nothing derisive about Mayer’s work in my comments about Cassini.

        (3) You’re welcome for the “highly scientific approach,” and for bringing Wepster to your attention.

        • Bindidon says:

          ” (1) You have not read Wepsters book. ”

          YOU, MCGUFFIN did not read that book, because you were not able to show any detail out of it.

          I have read Steven Adriaan Wepster’s dissertation, especially that section 9.5.1 which most accurately reflects Mayer’s work.

          *
          ” (2) There is nothing derisive about Mayers work in my comments about Cassini. ”

          No one claims you did!

          You simply know NOTHING about his work.

      • Bindidon says:

        MCGUFFIN

        That Laplace is known as a very great scientist: no doubt about that!

        *
        Here is a translation of Laplace’s introduction to his work concerning Moon’s spin:

        https://drive.google.com/file/d/1okKswrb-hNPwLL7qtK7wuGROYK4VPfvA/view

        Search for references to ‘Mayer’, and you will understand.

        • Gordon Robertson says:

          binny…”That Laplace is known as a very great scientist: no doubt about that!*
          Here is a translation of Laplace’s introduction to his work concerning Moon’s spin:”

          ***

          Laplace was a mathematician. The link you presented to his work reveals him as having no idea how the Moon moves in space. His reference to Mayer is nothing more than name-dropping.

          He quotes Newton as follows:

          “It is in Proposition XXXVIII of the Third Book that Newton speaks of the physical cause of the libration of the Moon. He first determines the figure of the Moon, which he considers to be an ellipsoid of homogeneous and fluid revolution. He finds that his great axis must be directed towards the Earth, and that it surpasses by about sixty meters, the diameter of its equator”.

          This is a nonsense analysis of what Newton said. The statement above makes no sense wrt science, it’s nothing more than words strung together in random fashion. The thrust of Newton’s comment was that the Moon’s near face pointed at the principle axis, which is Earth, a bit to either side at the most eccentric part of the orbit. That is explained perfectly by translation with no rotation.

          I interpreted Newton to mean his reference to the Moon’s ‘revolution’, as opposed to rotation, was a reference to a change in orientation of the near face, and not a reference to rotation about its axis.

          Both Mayer and Laplace got it wrong. Laplace missed the most obvious reason why the Moon rotates with the same face always pointed to the Earth. That is, the Moon is translating, like a car on a highway, with no local rotation whatsoever. If that same car was moving on an oval track, it would present the same face to the interior of the track and could not rotate about its COG without doing a 360 degree spin about the COG.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            type alert…”The thrust of Newtons comment was that the Moons near face pointed at the principle axis…”

            should read…

            “The thrust of Newtons comment was that the Moons near face pointed at the principle focus…”.

          • Bindidon says:

            Robertson

            I read Mayer’s 130 pages long treatise, and understood.

            You didn’t, and will never do.

            The more you write about complex things, the more you are viewed as a simple-minded denialist.

            This doesn’t disturb me at all.

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            can’t even write typo correctly.

          • Bindidon says:

            Robertson

            ” I interpreted Newton to mean his reference to the Moons revolution, as opposed to rotation, was a reference to a change in orientation of the near face, and not a reference to rotation about its axis. ”

            You can try to distort Newton’s words as long as you want.

            That won’t change anything to the source:

            ” 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 25 1/2 days, and the moon in 27 days, 7 hours, 43′. ”

            *
            Poor Robertson, who is stubborn and dumb enough to endlessly try to deny historical reality.

            Unlike you, Newton and Mercator perfectly understood what Cassini had found out, and was later on refined by Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace and so many others.

            *
            If you had brain and balls, Robertson, you would study

            – how Mayer observed lunar craters and how he managed to obtain their selenocentric coordinates

            and

            – would try to scientifically contradict him

            instead of

            – showing off with some primitive pseudotheories.

            *
            Aber Robertson hat weder Neuronen unter der Schädeldecke geschweige denn Eier ‘in der Hose’, und kann daher nur all das diskreditieren, was er selbst nicht erreichen kann!

          • Gordon Robertson says:

            binny…” 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 25 1/2 days, and the moon in 27 days, 7 hours, 43′. ”

            ***

            Newton did not specify that the Moon ‘revolves’ about a local axis. In fact, he confirmed it does not by discussing libration, an illusion that the Moon rotates through a few degrees per orbit.

            The Moon appears to revolve wrt the stars but the word revolution is a misnomer. The correct description is that the near-face of the Moon changes orientation wrt the stars, a result of the Moon moving by translation, a condition in which the near face, the COG, and the far-face move in concentric circles.

            I think LaPlace, LaGrange, and Mayer, lacked the physics to understand that fact leaving me to conclude that Newton’s words are being interpreted incorrectly. I think my interpretation above is more in line with the genius of Newton.

            In fact, I just channeled the spirit of Newton and he confirmed my suspicion. He asked me to advise Binny that Mayer was a wanker.

          • RLH says:

            “What is the movement of a translation?

            In classical physics, translational motion is movement that changes the position of an object, as opposed to rotation.”

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      maguff…”On February 18, 1679, Cassini presented to the Academy of Paris his Chart de la Lune, that is, the Map of the Moon, which was the first scientific map of our satellite”.

      ***

      Where’s his proof that the Moon rotates on a local axis?

  82. Clint R says:

    I’m watching this argument between braindead cult idiots, fighting over which centuries-old sci-fi writer is the best! And neither has a clue how that negates all their beliefs in centuries-old sci-fi writers!

    Science is about SCIENCE, not about which source you believe in. Orbital motion is VERY clear and unambiguous. It is very obvious if something is rotating on its axis or not. But the braindead cult idiots are STILL claiming Mt Everest, the wooden horse, and Moon are all rotating about their axes. They HAVE to. It’s a requirement of their cult.

    At times like this, it’s important to remember that not ONE of the idiots was able to solve the barbell problem. Not one of them can provide a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”, that works. They know NOTHING about the science. They can’t do anything except search the Internet for things they believe in, get more confused about what “rotation” is, claim that libration is “proof” of rotation, claim passenger jets fly backwards, and clog up this blog.

    They are clearly braindead cult idiots, yet everyone of them “believes” he is a scientist!

    It’s an amazing show.

    • Gordon Robertson says:

      clint…”Science is about SCIENCE…”

      ***

      Although many people have tried to re-define science to further their pseudo-science, science is based on the scientific method. A further requirement is that conclusions formed by the scientific method be re-producible. That excludes unvalidated computer models and the anthropogenic theory.

      It also excludes paradigms based on consensus, such as the myth that the Moon rotates on a local axis. No spinner has supplied proof to back their appeal to authority that the Moon can rotate exactly once about a local axis per orbit while keeping the same face pointed at the Earth.

      Physically impossible. Cannot be demonstrated using the scientific method.

    • Willard says:

      > Science is about SCIENCE

      Incorrect, PUP.

      Science is about the WORLD.

      You know NOTHING.

      Not even TROLLING.

      • Gordon Robertson says:

        willard…”Science is about the WORLD”.

        ***

        Try not to be an idiot, Willard. Observation is one part of the scientific method.

        • Willard says:

          C’mon, Gordo.

          How the hell are you going to understand the WORLD if you don’t use observations?

          Pup say that science was about science. Even you got to admit that it was silly.

          Think from time to time.

    • Norman says:

      Clint R

      That was an obnoxious rant. People have given you many examples. I have given you a can test that you refuse to do or cannot understand.

      You are the braindead cult member complete with your mindless chant “ball on string….ball on string…ball on string” you fill your mind with this chant and can’t think of any other possibility.

      If you take a can, tape a rubber band on top then anchor the rubber band on a fixed point above it, then rotate the can what happens to the rubber band? Does it show rotation on axis by twisting up?

      If you take the same can and move it in a circular path around a central point (like an orbit) and keep the can facing inward what happens to the rubber band. Do you find you have to ROTATE the can on its axis to keep it facing the center? You would find this out if you were not a braindead cult idiot that rambles and rants and cannot understand science, the scientific method, facts observations, evidence or anything related to the real world of science.

      You are content to rant and ramble about things you don’t understand and endlessly chant. It would be interesting how many times you have posted the words ball on a string on Roy’s blog.

      • bobdroege says:

        Norman,

        Another model, and another proof that the ball on a string rotates about its local axis.

        They won’t understand, they are stuck.

        They pervert the scientific method by starting with their conclusions.

        • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

          Norman actually argues that the ball on a string is not rotating about its own internal axis, e.g:

          "The ball is rotating around the center pivot (maybe your fingers). The string and ball are one object that rotates around the center."

          from a comment upthread. He has argued many times before, just like Bindidon has, that the ball is not rotating about an axis passing through the ball itself.

          • Willard says:

            Do you not understand that whatever geometry definitions you use you’d still have to explain the Moon’s behavior using the same physics as everyone else, Kiddo?

            That should concern Moon Dragon cranks.

            At least those who are not trolling.

            Please stop.

      • Clint R says:

        Norman hates the simple ball-on-a-string analogy, but then he complains that he has to “ROTATE the can on its axis to keep it facing the center”, in his failed experiment.

        “Hey Norman, staple a string to the side of the can and it will face the center as you push it.”

        The guy is a perfect example of “braindead cult idiot”.

  83. Gordon Robertson says:

    maguff…”Laplace is remembered as one of the greatest scientists of all time. Sometimes referred to as the French Newton or Newton of France…”

    ***

    No doubt, an accolade written by his mother. Laplace is known for his mathematics, not his physics. He doesn’t even rate in the top 1000 physicists.

  84. Gordon Robertson says:

    Let’s face it, scientists prior to the 1800s, excepting a few, like Newton, were largely ignorant of physics. Even at that, Newton wisely limited himself to a few subjects related to physics.

    It was not till the late 1700s that anyone began to investigate heat. It was noted that cannon barrels got hot as they were drilled. It was not till about 1840 that the scientist, Joule, quantified the relationship between mechanical energy and thermal energy (heat).

    It was not till the mid 1700s that James Watt investigated the power of a horse wrt the power of a steam engine. He derived the term horsepower and the European equivalent, the watt, was named in his honour.

    Heat was not studied seriously till the mid-1800s and it was not till the 1890s that the electron was discovered. Tesla did much of his great work on power transmission and transformers in that era as well.

    People like Newton, Cassini, Laplace, Lagrange, and Mayer were working in eras well before science really got going. It is really amazing what Newton accomplished given the lack of established, rigourous scientific investigation available at the time.

    Still, I cannot understand why they all missed a very simple mathematical proof that the Moon cannot rotate on a local axis. I learned this stuff in a few months studying engineering physics and the proof cannot be refuted. Much to my chagrin, the spinners here don’t even understand the problem, never mind trying to rebut my claim that it is impossible for the Moon to rotate about a local axis while keeping the same face pointed at the Earth.

    Clint, Dremt and a few other get this intuitively and have offered their own proofs. It is no surprise they are also skeptical of global warming/climate change theory.

    In his paper, Laplace admitted it confused scientists in those days why the Moon kept the same face toward the Earth. In today’s first year engineering classes it is totally obvious, even though it seems some people at NASA don’t get it either.

    Tesla got it, but he used another method that is more complex. Of course, Tesla did not have the advantage of witnessing aircraft and satellites that orbit the Earth, making his proof all the more spectacular.

    • bobdroege says:

      Gordon,

      As you have been told, numerous times, your proof has a critical flaw.

      Your axial line is rotating, anything attached to that line is also rotating, which means the Moon is rotating.

      Your tangent lines are also rotating because they are attached to that radial line.

      The near side moves slower than the far side because pi*r is less than pi*(r+ diameter of the Moon)

      It has to rotate so that the distance from the near side to the far side.

    • Clint R says:

      Ken, linking to your cult only supports your cult beliefs.

      Does that computer graphic “convince”” you? If so, you don’t understand science, AT ALL.

      Do you not understand that a ball-on-a-string would have the same graphic? That should concern you, if you weren’t braindead. It should concern you because we know the ball is NOT rotating about its axis. The ball has the same motion as that graphic, but the ball is NOT rotating.

      I predict you won’t be able to understand.

  85. Bindidon says:

    People like Robertson, Clint R and a few others (recently including this strange Martin guy, who – yes, incredible but true, look upthread – elevates his own gut evidence feeling above proofs, all are ignorant denialists who can’t understand what it means that so different people as the German astronomer Mayer in 1750, the German mathematicians Beer and Mädler in 1837, the Russian astronomer Habibullin in 1963, and the French mathematician Calamé in 1976, came to nearly exactly the same results concerning Moon’s rotation period, despite having used completely different observation methods and observation data processing.

    And when I read:

    ” Still, I cannot understand why they all missed a very simple mathematical proof that the Moon cannot rotate on a local axis. ”

    I can only ask how cowardly people can behave, who dare to write such a nonsense, while carefully avoiding to scientifically contradict the work of those they discredit and denigrate by intentionally misrepresenting, distorting the work they accomplished.

    Not one of these ignoramuses would ever be able go deeply enough e.g. into Mayer’s work in order to understand it, let alone to discover any mistake! NOT ONE!

    I repeat for the umpteenth time what one of my former university professors said over four decades ago:

    Who is unable to scientifically contradict soon will start to unscientifically discredit. “

    • Clint R says:

      Braindead-idon, it scares you that some people can think for themselves: “…including this strange Martin guy, who — yes, incredible but true, look upthread — elevates his own gut evidence feeling above proofs”

      And, why don’t you show some of those “proofs”? In fact, make it easy on yourself and just pick out your very best “proof”. Yeah, show us your very best “proof” that Moon is rotating on its axis.

      Endless “observations” confusing libration with rotation are easily debunked. Newton showed that “orbital motion without axial rotation” could be modeled by a ball-on-a-string. Your cult does not understand that, and remains stuck in the 17th century, with astrologers like Cassini.

      All you are able to do is link to things from your cult, and talk about your cult believers from centuries ago. You have NOTHING to counter the simple ball-on-a-string. That simple analogy holds, no matter how much you hate it, and try to ignore it.

      The fact that you don’t have a workable model of “orbital motion without axial rotation” should tell you something, if you weren’t braindead. It should tell you that you have NO science behind your cult beliefs.

      Let me remind you of the quote, you claim is real, adjusted to fit this situation: “Who is unable to scientifically contradict the ball-on-a-string, soon will start to unscientifically discredit.”

      • Bindidon says:

        Newton showed that ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ could be modeled by a ball-on-a-string. ”

        Clint R, this is really the very best statement you ever wrote on this blog.

        Thanks a lot!

        • Clint R says:

          No problem, Bin.

          And when you get a chance, don’t forget that very best “proof”: “Yeah, show us your very best “proof” that Moon is rotating on its axis.

          • bobdroege says:

            Why, it’s the fact that it keeps one face generally towards the Earth, like a ball on a string, yes that’s the very best proof that the Moon rotates on its axis, just like a ball on a string rotates on its axis.

          • Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team says:

            According to Bindidon and Norman, the ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis.

          • Clint R says:

            Braindead bob doesn’t understand that the ball is not rotating because if it were, the string would wrap around it.

            bob just can’t understand things. He’s braindead.

          • RLH sa