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
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?
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.
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
“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).
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).
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
“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.
This year, winter in the US begins on the first of November.
https://i.ibb.co/8d66Rh7/gfs-o3mr-150-NA-f072.png
ren
Please publish also station data confirming this!
ren was right Bindidon, we woke up with snow. Data from our deck station in No Michigan 5 minutes ago:
https://i.postimg.cc/rp2mkkTW/Nov-2-2021-No-Michigan.jpg
You should move to southeastern Michigan (where I live)
Northern Michigan is almost like Alaska.
W’me’ve heard polar bears live there.
I sure you like global warming even more than we do.
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
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
“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
How interesting! And are there records for every time a box is replaced/renovated? Many thanks, good luck with you getting it published
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.
Temperatures are dropping in the northeastern Pacific.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data/5km/v3.1/current/animation/gif/ssta_animation_30day_large.gif
ren
It’s always funny to see you exclusively mentioning cold corners!
The same circulation as in the graphic above (Maunder’s Minimum) is currently observed over North America.
https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/7000/7122/maunder_minimum_temperature.gif
https://i.ibb.co/kXmgG55/mimictpw-namer-latest.gif
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/7122/chilly-temperatures-during-the-maunder-minimum
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
1. NOAA/NCEP precip forecast for Europe 2021/22
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/htmls/euPrece3Mon.html
2. NOAA/NCEP temp forecast for Europe 2021/22
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/htmls/euT2me3Mon.html
We’ll see how the combination of the two really will behave.
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?
Looks very likely that 2021 will be warmer than 2018, despite having a stronger La Nina. It may finish up warmer than 2015, which was an El Nino year.
His Lordship will have to find yet another new start date for the ‘pause’ in his WUWT series, lol.
The Third Viscount is like an eel; he certainly will find some way to backtrack out of his own blind-alley.
I keep arguing on WUWT with people insisting UAH is completely unreliable. How times change.
Indeed, and yet there is a consistency even deeper than preferring UAH…
The new pause now starts in March 2015, making the pause a month shorter than it was last month.
It’s like the hokey cokey
The “pause” is data mining
UAH chart clearly shows a warming trend since 1979.
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?
Do you mean something like this 21/21?
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/plot/uah6-land/to:2000/trend/plot/uah6/from:2001/trend
or this (30/30)?
https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/uah6/plot/uah6-land/to:2009/trend/plot/uah6/from:1991/trend
Kevin Cowtan has an interactive trend/trend significance calculator that allows selection of the data set, start, and end time here:
Trend Calculator
Nick Stokes has web app that shows a contour plot of all trends for a data set here:
Temperature Trend Viewer!
Mark B
You are of course right.
Kevin’s and Nick’s tools are 1,000 % more accurate than Paul’s WFT.
But it was enough to show such a simple matter.
Btw: what I miss in all three tools is the possibility for the user to add own time series stored in external files, allowing for example to add HadISST1 SST or ICE, or GHCN daily or the like, and to overlay them with the existing data.
On the plus side, the current circulation over North America is rainfall in California.
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
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.
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?
Sorry, should be in the “upper troposphere”.
The 300 hPa level is still the troposphere.
“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.
> 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:
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.
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.
On the contrary, Pup: that should tell Sky Dragon Cranks that they got no case.
Where’s water on Bare Earth, btw?
“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.
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.
So the Earth is the temperature it’s calculated to be. No 33K GHE.
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.
“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.
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?
See, Pup?
You’re trolling again.
Please desist.
–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.
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.
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.
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!
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 . . .
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!
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?
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.
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.
You’re trolling again, Pup.
Please desist.
“they never mentioned the calculation was for an imaginary black body.”
That’s because they didn’t.
For 50 bucks I’ll tell you why.
b,
Here’s 50 bucks.
Now tell him why.
Geez, you really are a dummy, aren’t you?
That’s not even bit coin.
“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.
“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.
> Otherwise
If only the Earth was as bare as the Moon.
Things would be great on Earth.
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.
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.
“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.
“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.
“…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.
“…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.
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.
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.
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.
I predict that Kiddo will be constantly repeating his new pet line this month.
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”.
Hey Pup,
You’re trolling.
You promised to stop.
Please stop.
Thanks.
<3
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-963688
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
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
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
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
Judging by North American pressure in November, the troposphere anomaly over the US may change sign.
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.
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?
To correct the not so clever Bindishysterdong
The chart originates from Alex Reichmuth (Switzerland)
and only used in presentations by others
https://www.nebelspalter.ch/satellitendaten-wecken-zweifel-am-menschengemachten-klimawandel
Indeed Eben, you are right, I remember to have seen that:
” By Alex Reichmuth (Switzerland) ”
Your dumb insults are always as welcome as those of Clint R, they make you so pretty good similar to him, what heavily ‘increases’ your credibility.
But, as usual, you were unable to see how ‘wrong’ Alex as been in his analysis.
Maybe you understand what bdgwx wrote:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/10/31/swiss-analysis-climate-models-running-too-warm-falsely-calibratedipcc-needs-to-review-its-findings/#comment-3377786
” David Legates said he created his graphs using KNMI. The problem is that KNMI does not have all of the CMIP6 data uploaded yet and so is overweight on the outlier model CanESM5. That makes it difficult to fairly assess how well it performed.
Here is the CMIP5 RCP45 ensemble mean from KNMI. As can be seen it is indeed running hot. I don’t know if it is fair to call that a failure though.
Afterall UAH differs from the composite of 7 datasets by 0.052 C/decade whereas CMIP5 differs by 0.045 C/decade. So if CMIP5 is a failure in predicting the temperature then perhaps UAH could be described as a failure at measuring it. ”
That is of course something you certainly would never underline – for political reasons, n’est-ce pas, Eben?
David Legates said he created the chart.
https://youtu.be/Hs6lDsFipjM?t=241
Of-course he did , it sez right on the chart, I was just playing with Binderdong because He always attacks based on the source , not on content
I had forgotten about bdgwx. He used to troll here, about a year ago. He was an expert on the AGW nonsense, but knew nothing about physics.
He left after a serious meltdown.
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.
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….
Nope! Never said that. I can ignore most of what you write, but the outright lies/errors get annoying enough to respond to occasionally. Find a place where you THINK I said such a thing and QUOTE exactly what I said.
You REALLY need to
1) learn to read carefully.
2) Take a few years of physics to catch up to the rest of us.
Just to correct the record:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-543564
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.
…and no Greenhouse Effect.
“…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}.
Do you not understand that a rambling, pointless comment, misplaced, may be a sign of a meltdown?
Why are you still trolling and make all your fans sad, Pup?
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.
Mike Flynn,
Our favorite unilingual Aussie from under!
*Rounds of applause.*
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]
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Now you got my attention.
Tell me about this other language you pretend to know.
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!
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.
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.
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?
“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 Cbetween -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!
Mike Flynn,
Modicum of Finesse,
Start here:
https://webster.eas.gatech.edu/Papers/albedo2015.pdf
Best of luck!
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.
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!
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.
Mike Flynn,
Masterly Feeble,
Everybody knows about entropy.
Do you have a point? No?
I thought so.
Enjoy your evening,
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.
Mike Flynn,
Mud Fisticuff,
You’re the diversion.
Please!
Swenson says: “So, heating without heat!”
More like a jacket keeping you warm by reducing the loss of heat.
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.
CAD
Maue’s 2mag data sounds interesting, thanks.
He’s got it
https://youtu.be/ksFURyHVPpQ
He really doesn’t
Yeah baby he’s got it.
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
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
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
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
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.
Sorry.
255K= -18.15000℃
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
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.]
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
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….
“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.
“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.”
…and, that 33 K is a meaningless number. What should be compared is the calculated temperature of a real oblate spheroid (Earth and atm. system) at 255 K with the measured brightness temperature of a real oblate spheroid (Earth and atm. system) at 255 K to reveal that Earth and atm. system is the temperature we expected it to be. No 33 K GHE.
> with the measured brightness temperature of a real oblate spheroid (Earth and atm. system) at 255 K
Citation needed.
Ball4, my other stalker that I no longer respond to is requesting a citation for your claim that there is a “real brightness temperature of a real oblate spheroid (Earth and atm. system) measured at 255K”. Perhaps you could help him out. I cannot, as I no longer respond to him.
“What should be compared is the calculated temperature of a real oblate spheroid (Earth and atm. system) at 255 K…”
For the 1LOT calculated 255K, see your choice of a reliable college text book course on atm. radiation. The calculation is also found in the published specialist papers. I am not a librarian so that work is up to the commenter.
Ball,
Please tell your favorite Dragon crank that he conflates “real” with “measured.”
OK, Ball4. I have already seen, and understand, the calculation. Back to my point…
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-965445
Ball can also see that Kiddo opposed “calculated” to “measured” in his new meme, and that his prescription falters when properly understood. But back to Kiddo’s new pet line.
Counter is now at 2.
“Real Brightness Temperature of an oblate spheroid.” LOL
Typical Ball-speak…
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=calculated+temperature+of+a+real+oblate+spheroid
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-963688
“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!
Nate proves once again how braindead he is.
Energy absorbed = 240*4 = 960 Joules/sec
Pup is trolling again. Oh no, my love’s at an end. Oh no, Pup’s trolling again. You know it’s hard to pretend.
Nope. Nothing you say is rational.
>Nope. Nothing you say is rational.
Willard’s a propagandist. “Rational” isn’t in his job description.
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.
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?
Mike Flynn,
Mache Fact,
Thank you for JAQing off.
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!
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
TL;DR.
Oh! Oh! Oh!
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.
950 gigatons ain’t a blip, Trogodyte.
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).
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”
I’m in favor of a vast military style campaign to remove bozos like Prince Charles, Justin Trudeau, Joe Biden, etc, from having any influence on our lives.
‘We are in an abusive relationship with our leaders’. Neil Oliver
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTkWd_3mAXQ
“Bezos Leads Parade Of 400 Private Jets To COP26 With $65M Gulfstream”
Billionaires do such things. They tend to use way more resources than the average person.
BTW, his rocket’s fuel efficiency is terrible.
OTOH,
His Gulfstream jet gets ~ 1 mile/gallon, but can carry ~ 20 people, so we can estimate ~ 20 person-miles/gallon fuel efficiency.
IOW about what you get driving your SUV to work.
Commercial jets get ~ 100 person-mile/gallon for average seat.
BUT, First-class seats take up ~ 10 x area as regular seating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_economy_in_aircraft#Seating_classes
So if he were to fly First Class, which he undoubtedly would, the fuel efficiency for him could be as low as 10 person-miles/gallon.
So… is this a real issue or just hype?
TechnoCaveman
” … as solar cycle #25, by my charting, is not living up solar cycle #24. ”
Oh! Where is your charting, Caveman? I’m interested.
Next week I’ll update this F10.7 cm solar flux chart comparing the two, with data since end of September:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QDIH1i34iyU4cQgkhwoUDYTYAA2Qx-7v/view
When I look at the end of
ftp://ftp.seismo.nrcan.gc.ca/spaceweather/solar_flux/daily_flux_values/fluxtable.txt
I’m not entirely sure if the polynomial in my chart will get weaker.
USCRN temperature data for Oct 2021
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/uscrn-daily-values.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/uscrn-contiguous-daily-values.jpg
Comparison at the end of October.
https://i.ibb.co/30gpvch/uscrn-daily-values.jpg
What it does show is that Oct for USCRN was about average (a little above, a little below) and that the year so far is close but lower overall than the mean/median.
That’s the trouble with eyeballing, the actual data is below.
USCRN Monthly values
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/uscrn-monthly-values.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/uscrn-contiguous-monthly-values.jpg
The Nino 3.4 index will soon drop well below -1 C.
https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/data_current/5km/v3.1_op/daily/png/ct5km_ssta_v3.1_west_current.png
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
It’s actually wronger than that:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/25/mind-your-units/
W
Just as we receive light with your every comment.
No problemo, Pozzo.
‘Wronger’? There’s no such word!
Carbon500,
Weird Wee Willy never claimed to be particularly bright, nor particularly literate.
Mike Flynn,
Multilingual Fake,
You must be new to the Internet:
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wronger
What’s your second language, Maori?
Good nitpick, Torbjrn. You can make the absolutely tiny adjustment to the calculations if you like.
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
Sorry.
The NAO is falling again.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/nao.mrf.obs.gif
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
OK, thanks. Still works out as approx. 480 W/m^2 absorbed, 240 W/m^2 emitted, of course…
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
ren
That below, ren, is what we are facing, despite the beautiful La Nina:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/htmls/euT2me3Sea.html
Meanwhile in Bristol, Virginia:
https://documented.net/reporting/revealed-the-recent-joe-manchin-meeting-with-coal-barons-their-investors-and-climate-deniers-at-a-luxury-golfing-resort
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?
Earth’s Energy Budget
says nothing about 255K
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#Earth's_energy_imbalance
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bb/The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg/660px-The-NASA-Earth%27s-Energy-Budget-Poster-Radiant-Energy-System-satellite-infrared-radiation-fluxes.jpg
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
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.
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
> Earth has never stopped cooling
Are you sure about that:
https://www.timeanddate.com/weather/greece/athens/climate
“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.
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?
“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.
Christos,
You will find that B4 is the “master” at citing stuff that isn’t there.
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.
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.
> That’s all we have.
Sure, Troglodyte:
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
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
Christos does not always cite stuff, but when he does he invariably cite stuff that contradicts what he calls a theory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_energy_budget#Earth's_energy_imbalance
Christos would profit from reading his own citations.
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
“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
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
Ok. But you didnt answer ny question.
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
No.
We know from basic science that CO2 cannot raise Earth temperatures higher.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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!
“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.
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.
“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.
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.]
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.
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.
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.
Pup,
You’re trolling again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Venus
Stop. You can do it.
W
We have faith you can too.
My dear Pozzo,
No U
“That’s like trying to warm the surface with ice cubes!”
Can you warm the surface with ice cubes?
It seems one way could involve having flying ice cubes.
Or have ice cubes on Mars or the Moon.
Flying ice cube might be silly, and so leaves the Moon or Mars.
How about a dome on Mars.
Ice cubes like in the freezer, aren’t good building material to make
a dome. How about ice cubes reincarnated into more useful ice?
So, get a dome of useful ice on Mars, can warm the surface?
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!
Braindead-idon, as more trace cases [sic] are added to the atmosphere, there are more emitters. That means more emission to space.
… and more to the surface.
” 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.
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.
“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.
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.
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!
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….
“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.
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.
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).
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.
“… 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
Notice how Pup & Kiddo fail to get Mark’s tube experiment.
Instead they’re trolling.
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.]
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.
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.
Craig T,
That’s not scattering. Take a few classes in spectroscopy.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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….
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.
“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.
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.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-971203
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Eman,
Really? You should write a paper on that. Submit it to Journal of PHysical Chemistry.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Clint R. is correct. I was off by a factor of 1000 in the energy of a 15 micron photon. In my notes I had scribbled down the conversion from electron-volts to Joules. As an old nuclear physicist I tend to think in eV and multiples thereof.
The correct energy of 15 micron photon is about 1.33 x 10^-20 J not 1.33 x 10^-23 J. That does not affect the gist of my argument.
Thanks for admitting and correcting your mistake, Mark. Anyone can make a little mistake. Just look at my many typos, for example….
Go here to learn about your bigger mistakes:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-970762
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?
Yes, look up the changes in hardiness zones for the continental US.
Try this review article and the papers to which it links.
https://e360.yale.edu/features/redrawing-the-map-how-the-worlds-climate-zones-are-shifting
Thanks Bobdroege and Entropic Man – I’ll look at the material you suggest later.
Entropic man: I’ve had a preliminary look at the linked review, and I’ve found it very interesting. The maps present the information in a very clear manner. I look forward to getting further into the details presented – thanks again!
bobdroege: thanks, I’d not heard of hardiness zones before – I’m not inclined towards gardening or botany! It’s an interesting subject, and I’ll get into more detail over the next few days. It’s exactly the sort of information I’m looking for.
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
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?
Why don’t You tell us
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
The sun’s magnetic activity is very low, as evidenced by the level of high energy UV radiation that produces ozone from oxygen. This already has consequences in the circulation in the stratosphere, where ozone due to its higher temperature affects the circulation in the stratosphere similarly to water vapor in the troposphere. The difference is that, being a heavier gas than air, it sinks rather than rises as water vapor does in the troposphere.
Figure 4. Comparison of UV solar activity in the three most recent solar cycles (SC) 22-24. The thick curves show the Mg II index timeseries twice smoothed with a 55-day boxcar. Dates of minima of solar cycles (YYYYMMDD) were determined from the smoothed Mg II index.
https://www.iup.uni-bremen.de/gome/solar/mgii_composite_2.png
The Wilcox Solar Observatory’s solar dipole plot shows a steady decline in the Sun’s magnetic activity.
https://i.ibb.co/MgJnfDZ/Dipall.gif
10,7 cm Solar Radio Flux 2021-11-03 02.00 UT.
https://i.ibb.co/vB3BWQk/solradmon-eng.png
Plasma Climate Forcing | Vortex and Jet Streams
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLzXKxjFfao&list=PLHSoxioQtwZcqdt3LK6d66tMreI4gqIC-&index=4
https://i.ibb.co/FmH2KPg/Screenshot-1.png
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.
Ask if anybody even cares about your misaligned charts first
–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]
–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.
Listening to history unplugged:
https://www.historyonthenet.com/episode-1-welcome-to-the-age-of-discovery-2-0
Linked from:
http://www.transterrestrial.com/
The problem with space solar is how to get the energy to earth surface without increasing earth energy budget.
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.
UAH updates for Oct 2021
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/uah.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/uah-northern-hemi.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/uah-southern-hemi.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/uah-tropics.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/uah-northern-ex.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/uah-southern-ex.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/uah-1.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/uah-month-on-month.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/uah-long-term.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/uah-residuals.jpeg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/uah_lt.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/uah_mt.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/uah_mt.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/uah_tp.jpg
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/uah_ls.jpg
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
The sharp increase in the solar wind speed caused an equally sharp decrease in galactic radiation. This shows the strength of the solar wind’s magnetic field reaching Earth.
https://i.ibb.co/qYNNyGQ/onlinequery-1.gif
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,
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.
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”….
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.”
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?
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:
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
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.
Now Braindead-idon has to deny his own source.
That’s why this is so much fun.
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.
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.
“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.
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!
Manual pingback for Memory Fallible Mike Flynn:
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.
Whickering Wee Willy,
Name one person gives a toss how you put (or where you put it, for that matter).
Mike Flynn, Mike Flynn.
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?
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!
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?
Mike Flynn,
Masquerade Flimsy,
Everybody knows here who’s Mike Flynn:
https://judithcurry.com/2016/06/02/the-cloud-climate-conundrum/#comment-788322
Cheers!
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.
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
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
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.
“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.
But the energies of photons do add.
That’s why a CO2 laser can cut steel.
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?
more irrelevant bullshit in an attempt to look smart
not working is it
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.
Define nature, you simpleton.
No, dimwit, I won’t. Why should I?. If you don’t know what nature is, you should specialise in climate crankery.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
‘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.
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.
“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
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
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.
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?
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.
No one ever anywhere said “molecule frequencies add”. The “correct physics” is that more photons = bigger amplitude.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
This will be close enough.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-543564
ME> ” … could add some sunlight (315 W/m^2) … ”
So no. Not even CLOSE. Unless you think the sun is a second ice cube.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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].
Good job, Folkerts. You ignored my comment very well.
Why learn physics when you can just make stuff up, huh?
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.
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’.
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?
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)?
“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)?
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)?
“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’?
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)?
“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.
“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.
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.
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! “
NAO still negative. Better try to get a warm ear hat when Putin closes the valve.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/pna/nao.mrf.obs.gif
https://i.postimg.cc/dVg4C43c/Baghdadidon.jpg
One day you will be called a braindead cult idiot, Eben.
Probably not. Eben appears to be able to think for himself.
The phrase “braindead cult idiot” is reserved for braindead cult idiots, like you Bin.
Baghdad Bobindidon posted this warm Europe spot at least like 5 times already and not a single person argued about it , but he keep insisting people are denying it, Obviously he is arguing with voices in his head.
In October, “hot weather” occurred in northeastern Canada.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2021/october%202021/202110_Map.png
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.
you just can’t admit you made a mistake
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
told you I am buzzed…2^4 = 18 is brain rot.
2^4 = 16
That depends of if you are counting in numbers starting a 0 or 1. It could just as easily be be 43.
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.
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.
Exxon warns investors of climate risk to its oil and gas assets
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?
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!
TM,
You wrote –
“So, where id I say that?”
Do you wish to keep whining about my comprehension?
Sloppy, sloppy!
That’s it? That’s the best you can do?
Pitiful, pitiful!
Would you prefer – sloppy, really sloppy?
I would prefer some insightful contributions on the subject of the OP. But since you are just trolling, this is about the extent of it!
“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
“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.
The “33K” results from comparing REAL Earth to an imaginary sphere.
That ain’t science.
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.
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.
Hey, Pup —
Congratulations on being the comment leader with pure trolling!
If you could stop, that’d be great.
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.
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.
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.
> the truth is getting out
Right on, Pup:
Moon Dragon cranks should have a word with Christos.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3504002/
As long as they keep to their keyboards, all is well for our Dragon cranks.
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.
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!
The 33 K is definitely wrong. That needs to be understood, first of all.
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!
The 33 K is definitely wrong. That needs to be understood, first of all…
“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
No GHGs means no water vapor, Ball4, and no water vapor means no clouds.
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
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.”
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
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.
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
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.
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
"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
It is very much obvious the Mars’ albedo, insolation, and GHE not fast rotation makes Mars’ average surface (mean) effective temperature similar to our Moon’s. Our moon doesn’t have a GHE Christos because it has no atm.: lunar Tse = Te
Mars does have a GHE 215 210K of about 5K. Dr. Spencer has shown Christos how to properly calculate the planetary rotational warming effect between Mars and our moon:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/09/the-faster-a-planet-rotates-the-warmer-its-average-temperature/
Christos,
Ball4 likes linking something and then making claims that just aren’t there. B4, if anything, Dr.Spencer has supported Vournas’ theory.
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
“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.
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.
It does relative to the Sun.
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.
No, Christos has always said the Moon spins on its axis, it’s on his website.
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.
It has the appearance of not spinning as viewed by the Earth. Much like riding down an elevator.
…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.
You got the cart before the horse there boy
…said the guy who thinks Mt. Everest is rotating on its own axis.
Depends on wrt to what other object, ALL motion is relative.
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.
Ball4, your fundamental problem is you do not understand rotation…and you are a relentless, sociopathic troll.
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.
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.
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.
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?
“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.
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.
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.
“if Moon ever had any axial rotation, it would still have it”
Except that tidal locking caused by millennia says otherwise
Does this mean the Vostok ice cores are a lie?
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.
You should try reading a textbook sometime. Here’s one of the myriad titles on the subject.
PALEOCLIMATOLOGY – Reconstructing Climates of the Quaternary
by RAYMOND S. BRADLEY, Elsevier 2015.
maguff…”You should try reading a textbook sometime. Heres one of the myriad titles on the subject”.
***
Nothing I can do about your lack of reading comprehension. If you’d taken the time to look up Jaworowski, you’d have seen he is an expert on ice core sampling.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/
http://www.warwickhughes.com/icecore/zjmar07.pdf
I am familiar with self referencing JAWOROWSKI. Debunked many years ago.
Gordon Robertson at 5:07 PM
I’m curious why you didn’t mention that the Jaworowski paper you referenced was published inthe Executive Intelligence Review, “a weekly newsmagazine founded in 1974 by the American political activist Lyndon LaRouche.”
Couldn’t find a peer reviewed publication to support your false claim, huh?
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.
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.
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”.
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)
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.
You obviously wouldn’t recognize a differential equation if it jump up and bit you.
You obviously wouldnt recognize a differential equation if it jumped up and bit you.
Corrected before you get your panties in a bunch.
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.
No need for personal attacks GR. I’m trying to help you here.
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.
Your contribution is duly noted Clint R.
Have you found that Arrhenius CO2 equation yet?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I think the Gish gallop should be renamed to the Gordon Robertson gallop.
TM,
And what you think is important because . . . ?
You are full of yourself, aren’t you.
Your contribution is duly noted Swenson. How’s my spelling?
maguff…”I think the Gish gallop should be renamed to the Gordon Robertson gallop”.
***
The old ad hominem attack, normally reserved for twits who cannot understand or comprehend what they are reading.
Suits you well.
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.
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.
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.
“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
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
“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.
“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.
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.
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.
“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.
“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
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.”
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.
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.
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.
“as most people do”
Most people are correct. Unlike you and your tiny, tiny cult of ‘flat Earther’ equivalents.
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
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.
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.
You can only revolve about an external axis (i.e. orbit around it it) not rotate about it.
The axis of rotation need not go through the body.
“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.
Look it up. The axis of rotation need not go through the body. Just be told.
You don’t get to decide science. Others do that.
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”.
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.
“Revolve” just means “rotate about an external axis”.
“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..
So can you explain the physics of this “change in direction throughout the orbit” that is so easily explained by axial rotation?
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.
So if you attach a gyro to the ball, would it show it rotates or not?
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.
> 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.
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.
"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.
“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)?
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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”.
“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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
“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.
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.
Say what you like, Ball4. I know from your previous arguments that you think “orbital motion without axial rotation” is motion like the MOTR.
It can also be accurately described relatively like MOTL, since ALL motion is relative.
“Orbital motion without axial rotation” is either motion like the MOTL, or the MOTR. It cannot be both.
The caption says Moon on the right.
Keep jumping in on my comments, don’t you, bob?
DREMPTY,
Learned that from you.
How does it feel to be such a loser?
I wouldn’t know. Ask your fellow “Spinners”.
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.
“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.
RLH, anyone could assign “poles” to the ball-on-a-string. But, the ball is still not rotating.
I predict you will, once again, reject the reality of a ball-on-a-string..
There is no ‘reality’ to a ball-on-a-string unless you live on one.
Yep, he rejected it.
I stated that a ball-on-a-string has only relevance to a ball-on-a-string.
OK, reality rejecter.
That much more applies to you rather than me.
If you say so, reality rejecter.
You’re the one who rejects reality, not me.
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.
Yes, this discussion is getting tedious. “Spinner” Craig T is to blame for bringing it back up again, this time.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kepler Newton … yes I was wrong.
Your turn:
“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.
Well, actually, Kiddo:
https://www.rt.com/news/267643-earthquake-everest-move-mountain/
You know what a change of direction implies, right?
> 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!
“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
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?)
You missed this part, Pup:
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!
> Clint,
Craig, of course.
Pup needs no introduction.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
Reference frames do not settle the moon issue.
DREMT. Nothing settles you are not an idiot. Because you are.
DREMT offers reality, and the braindead cult idiots offer insults, slurs, and sources they can’t understand.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well, actually, Kiddo:
https://www.rt.com/news/267643-earthquake-everest-move-mountain/
You know what a change of direction implies, right?
“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.
“Ignoring any movement over geologic time”
Yes, obviously. Why would any commenter even bring up such movements, unless they were trolling?
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.
pups wrote:
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.
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!
“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.
pups wrote:
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.
The point flies over Swanson’s head, as usual.
“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.
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.
“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.
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!
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.”
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”
pups wrote:
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.
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.
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.
I’ll let you and Swanson fight that out, bob. I have no interest in talking to you.
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.
I get it, you think you have shown Swanson that he is wrong. Like I said, I will let you two fight it out.
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.
Like I said, I will let you and Swanson fight it out.
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.
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.
OK, bob. Let me know when you have fought it out with Swanson.
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.
bob, argue it out with Swanson, bdgwx and Tim.
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.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-985285
DREMPTY,
Why don’t you look it up in a Physics textbook?
or this
https://www.amazon.com/Einstein-Dummies-Carlos-I-Calle/dp/0764583484/ref=asc_df_0764583484/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=312734685832&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=13220415852419090693&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9022814&hvtargid=pla-452071177198&psc=1
Why don’t Swanson, bdgwx or Tim look it up in a physics textbook? I don’t know, bob. Ask them.
They already did. DREMT needs to do so also.
Here we go…
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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
“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?
‘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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“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?
“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.
Is that what you decided, troll Nate?
“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.
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.
SC 25 comparison – smoothed out
https://i.postimg.cc/T2WcGrxv/smoothed.png
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.
Whereas you are just a nutter, plain and simple.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
“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?
“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.
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.
“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?
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?
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.
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?
I nominate W for the title .
Pup has already 69 comments, Pozzo.
Kiddo has overtaken Mike Flynn, but it was Mike’s day off.
Our dynamic trio might very well finish in the top three.
Someone has to straighten out the braindead cult idiots.
It’s a tough job, but we get ‘er done….
“braindead cult idiots” perfectly describes Clint R, DREMT and Robertson.
“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.
“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.
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
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.
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.
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.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/11/06/how-natural-oscillations-affect-arctic-climate-predict-future-climate-change-part-4/
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.
“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). “
Is La Nina already in effect in Australia? Heavy rainfall in eastern Australia.
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
“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
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.
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.
Yes Norman, you’re still confusing “orbiting” with “rotating”.
Stick with the ball-on-a-string. It won’t confuse you.
A ball-on-a-string is only relevant to a ball-on-a-string.
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.
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?
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.
Craig, you appear to be confusing “libration” with “rotation”. Moon experiences libration, but it does NOT rotate.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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?
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It has been admitted by all that a ball-on-a-string is NOT an example of how the Moon orbits the Earth.
“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.
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.
“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.
Ball4, thanks for being such a perfect example of a braindead cult idiot.
You always make me look so good by comparison.
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.
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.
Of course.
Christos
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
this is pathetic: referencing news article in a political newsmagazine in “support” of a false claim about CO2 from ice cores.
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?
Gordon Robertson at 4:13 PM
Maguff shoots the messenger, misses the scientific article. Are all you alarmists that dense?
Irony detected!
With these recent breakthroughs in fusion technology, you leftists are going to need to look for a new boogeyman. How about water?
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?
This is my 3rd attempt to post a response. If it shows up I’ll write more.
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.
“How does the Moon negotiate the curvature of the Earth, with no engines, and only a constant linear momentum?”
“The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
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.
Gordo,
As I’ve explained before, Nazis weren’t right. they were left. Read their party platform-25 points. Nothing conservative about it.
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.
Sometimes it’s quite easy to tell:
http://www.ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf
Troglodytes will troglodyte.
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?
“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.
Yeah, I also try to take such prospective 🙂
“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.
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.
“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….
“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.
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:)]
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.
A ball-on-a-string is only relevant to a ball-on-a-string. Fact.
> 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.
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.
Ever noticed that it is only since 1980 or so that things have really started to ‘heat up’?
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
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
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.
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.
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/
Thanks for clarifying your comment, Ball4. Much better.
You seem to have such a hard time communicating in English. Maybe you can learn to do better from Christos.
See, even Clint R can learn good physics by reading & understanding my comments. But in that case Clint R is not an effective entertainer.
If I write that ‘Clint R’ is right, will you go away and never post here again?
I get plenty of validation from the incompetent flak I receive from braindead cult idiots.
Thanks for your contribution….
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
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
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.
They have different spins. It’s in his equation.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
Interesting Mark B.
Do you think there’s a reason for that, or is it just weather randomness?
UAH month on month a year before
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/uah-month-on-month.jpeg
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.
The long term change (over 60 years or more) is subject to non-statistical ‘corrections’ that make it unreliable at best. See the post at the top of this page for one example of this.
The raw data shows a larger rate of warming than the corrected data.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-data-adjustments-affect-global-temperature-records
Please explain how the climate change conspiracy benefits from fiddling the data to REDUCE the rate of warming.
Except that the post at the top of the page says just the opposite. The rate of warming has been overstated by the use of non-statistical ‘filters’ on the data.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Please note that Berkley Earth’s ‘averaging’ process for UHI bears a striking resemblance to adaptive 2d averaging (filtering) as applied to images.
And insulation has improved. It now takes considerably less energy to hear a house than in 1950. This will reduce UHI.
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.
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
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.
“”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
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
No. Every part of the Earth is rotating about the Earth’s axis. Why are you people so stupid?
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.
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.
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….
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
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?
Braindead bob, I was aware that many of you cult idiots can’t count. But, thanks for reconfirming.
And Moon is not rotating about its axis, so no spin angular momentum there. And orbital motion does not involve angular momentum. If the Earth-Moon gravity was ended, Moon would go flying off in a straight line due to its linear momentum.
Don’t expect to understand. You’re braindead. You can’t even count.
Clint R,
I mistook a quote mark for an asterisk, but this
“And orbital motion does not involve angular momentum.”
Indicates you failed at some point to complete some physics training.
Wikipedia will do
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum#:~:text=Just%20as%20for%20angular%20velocity,a%20chosen%20center%20of%20rotation.
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.
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.
The Moon rotates once on its axis per orbit of the Earth wrt to a gyro at its poles (and hence the fixed stars).
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?
> 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.
Science says:
TM, is the wooden horse on a merry-go-round actually rotating about its axis?
… wrt to the mgr or wrt to the room in which the mgr is contained?
See how the braindead cult idiots work?
No. Please explain.
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.
Your actions explain better than I can, braindead4.
Ball4 demonstrates once again that he does not understand rotation.
Thanks Clint R. Now you can explain to DREMT.
Not necessary. DREMT already knows you’re a braindead cult idiot, addicted to trolling.
Then I’ve already explained it better for DREMT than Clint R admits Clint can explain it, so not necessary.
Yes, Clint R, Ball4 is just another relentless, sociopathic troll.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gordon Robertson at 8:41 PM
“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”
The rest of your comment is hereby duly noted.
Laplace is remembered as one of the greatest scientists of all time. Sometimes referred to as the French Newton or Newton of France
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.
What’s your opinion of Wepster’s book on Mayer?
” 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.
Refrain from attacks, trolling (posting inflammatory, insincere, digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages) or cyber-bullying.
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?
Beware your wishes, Binny:
https://b-ok.cc/book/762521/ebe0d8
Bindidon at 4:56 PM
I don’t know what you’re so upset about. Aren’t you going to thank Willard for doing your research for you?
Bindidon at 4:56 PM
“Wepster’s book is, as opposed to the dissertation it was derived of, behind paywall,”
There is this new invention; it’s called The Library where you can any book you ever need. You should try it; all the kids are doing it.
I wrote two paragraphs about Cassini. Which do you find objectionable?
” I wrote two paragraphs about Cassini. Which do you find objectionable? ”
Everybody knows that only a few superficial statements have survived Cassini: those namely which were published by his son.
And Cassini’s laws were derived out of what his son published.
There is NO source known to us showing how Cassini came to his results.
But Mayer’s were very well:
https://www.e-rara.ch/download/pdf/913790?name=IV%20Abhandlung%20%C3%BCber%20die%20Umw%C3%A4lzung%20des%20Monds%20um%20seine%20Axe%20und%20die%20scheinbare%20Beweg
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.
” (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.
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.
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.
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…”.
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.
can’t even write typo correctly.
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!
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.
“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.”
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?
Gordon Robertson at 8:43 PM
As my father would say, that’s an elementary question, why don’t you answer it yourself.
Maybe your upbringing is why you’re braindead, TM.
Maybe your upbringing is why youre braindead, Clint R.
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.
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.
Something regarding science:
https://www.historyonthenet.com/episode-3-the-new-frontier-in-outer-space-with-robert-zubrin
> Science is about SCIENCE
Incorrect, PUP.
Science is about the WORLD.
You know NOTHING.
Not even TROLLING.
willard…”Science is about the WORLD”.
***
Try not to be an idiot, Willard. Observation is one part of the scientific method.
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.
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.
Norman, you probably missed this:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-978498
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.
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.
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.
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”.
By creating a lever between the center and the surface of the can. Gravity does not work that way.
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.
Gordon Robertson at 8:46 PM
Your opinion is duly noted.
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.
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.
Moon rotates see the details here: https://moon.nasa.gov/inside-and-out/top-moon-questions/
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.
> That should concern you
Why should it, Pup?
Pray tell us more about how SCIENCE (which according to you is about SCIENCE) really works.
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. “
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.”
” 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!
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.
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.
According to Bindidon and Norman, the ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis.
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.
Unless the string is attached at the ‘Earth’ end to something that can rotate around its center and not to its surface, the string would indeed wrap around it quite quickly, agreed.
Why is it that you want to treat the ‘Moon’ end and the ‘Earth’ end so differently?
They have no interest in learning. Even after long explanations by me, and several others, they remain completely uneducated about:
*the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-981473
the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string that applies only to a ball-on-a-string
Clint R gets things backwards as usual
“Braindead bob doesn’t understand that the ball is not rotating because if it were, the string would wrap around it.”
If it wasn’t rotating exactly once per revolution, it would wrap up the string.
Try harder next time.
And please for the rest of us, calculate the angular momentum of the ball on a string.
I’ll tell you one thing right now, the answer is not zero.
According to Norman and Bindidon, the ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis.
… wrt to the string.
DREMPTY,
Two things,
One, you didn’t answer your question.
Two, you cheated by looking at someone else’s homework.
You get an F on the quiz and you can report for your detention after school.
According to Bindidon and Norman, the ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis…
… wrt to the string per their comments.
No, Ball4, they never mentioned "wrt the string".
It is what they meant though.
Ball4 is now a mind reader.
Reading comment meanings, not minds. Only Clint R and DREMT can do mind reading repeatedly
You are a liar and a troll. I say that without anger, it is simply the only accurate way to describe you.
Another DREMT melt down – seem to be occurring more frequently lately. Here, DREMT writes he can read bob’s mind:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-980751
No, it’s just that I happen to know (from bob’s former comments) that he claims Mt. Everest rotates on its own axis. In fact, he claims everything on Earth is rotating on its own axis. He can correct me if I have that wrong, but I’m pretty sure I don’t.
If I write any negative descriptions of anyone you claim it is a "meltdown". That’s trolling, on your part.
Writing bob’s claiming in comments is better than writing what bob is thinking. DREMT can read bob’s comments but not bob’s (or any commenter’s) thinking.
So calm down DREMT, and write comments logically. DREMT was making progress understanding relativity, better to stay on that course.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
I’ve never trolled.
Trolls call commenters “liars” and tell other commenters they are “trolling”. Better for DREMT to get back to work on an improved understanding of relativity.
#2
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Wow…. I just can’t use logic nor reason anymore… folks like Blindion just can’t grasp that the mood does not rotate upon it’s axis when compared to the earth… there was one moon-spinner above that actually did admit to it but then tried to inject that while the moon does not spin on it’s axis… it does. I guess agendas run as deep as most conspiracy theories. how can one admit that an object does not spin on it’s axis in one situation … but then tries to push the theory that it does anyway…. hmmm I suppose that is why the spinsters can’t accept that the moon does not spin in relation to the earth since it will lead to the next cognitive question they wish to avoid.
I wonder what they would say if the Earth had 12 moons all stacked out 200 k out from each other and all sharing the exact same rotation (imagine a straight line where all 12 moons are inline ..always). All of them facing the earth just like the closest moon does and orbiting the earth in the same fashion. Moon1 does not spin at all in relation to moon2..nor any moon to moonN…at all times they are all in the same facing postion…. that can’t be said for the Earth though …which does spin on it’s axis…as well as any planet in our solar system. Sure…sure the spinsters will all cry and whine about the moon gets sunlight on all sides… but they can’t grasp that it is due to obital rotation and not axil spin…. this will take time to educate them… but they will grasp it ..eventually with God’s help
And for the umpteenth time as well, I ask how dumb those are allowed to be who, when looking at Newton’s words
” 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′. ”
persist in denying the evidence that Newton can’t have used, IN THE SAME SENTENCE, concerning Jupiter’s, Mars’, Venus’, Earth’ and the Sun’s rotation about an internal axis, the word ‘revolves’, but meant with the same word something different concerning the Moon.
A bit above this sentence, Newton explicitly, unequivocally wrote:
” That the diurnal motions of the planets are uniform… ”
And a bit below, he wrote
” But because the lunar day, arising from its uniform revolution about its axis, is menstrual, that is, equal to the time of its periodic revolution in its orb… “.
What denialists do the best is to distort and misrepresent what scientists wrote.
And they will never stop doing that.
And for the umpteenth time, Newton was the one that discovered what pure orbital motion looked like. It looks like a ball-on-a-string — one side of the ball always faces the inside of the orbit.
Liar. He said no such thing.
Goodness RLH, you’re obviously not enjoying your meltdown as much as I am.
Just try and point out where he actually said that.
Where did I quote Newton, RLH?
You’re not making things up again, are you?
You said “Newton was the one that discovered what pure orbital motion looked like. It looks like a ball-on-a-string”
Newton never said that orbital motion looked like a ball-on-a-string. Ever.
Where did I quote Newton, RLH?
Are you trying to squirm out of your own words?
You said
“Newton was the one that discovered what pure orbital motion looked like. It looks like a ball-on-a-string”.
Are you trying to wriggle out of your own words?
Yes, those are my words, but where did I quote Newton, RLH?
Another source using a ball on a string to help explain orbital motion:
https://www.astronomynotes.com/gravappl/s8.htm
Great source, DREMT. Especially where he says:
“Eventually the Earth’s rotation will slow down to where it keeps only one face toward the Moon. Gravity acts both ways so the Earth has been creating tidal bulges on the Moon and has slowed it’s rotation down so much that it rotates once every orbital period. The Moon keeps one face always toward the Earth.”
https://www.astronomynotes.com/gravappl/s10.htm
Of course it says that. So what? Most sources will state the moon rotates on its own axis, we are all already aware of that. So, back to the point, it is another source that uses a ball on a string to help explain orbital motion.
So What?
It uses a ball on a string to correctly identify that the Moon indeed rotates on its own axis.
> So what?
That rings a bell:
(SO WHAT) If some translation were involved in that movement, so what?
Here’s why it matters:
(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.
Since to slow down does it mean to stop, Kiddo, you might need to revise that line in the Moon Dragon Crank Master Argument.
bob,
“It uses a ball on a string to correctly identify that the Moon indeed rotates on its own axis”
False. Two completely different sections of the source material. It uses a ball on a string to help explain orbital motion. If “orbital motion without axial rotation” is indeed motion like a ball on a string, then what Tim has quoted from the other section is obviously false.
I am no longer responding to Willard, so why he keeps responding to me I have no idea…I do not even bother reading his comments any more. He never had anything worthwhile to contribute when I was paying attention to him, so I think I am safe to assume nothing has changed.
> It uses a ball on a string to help explain orbital motion.
False. It uses Newton’s laws of motion and gravity:
The BOS serves to ILLUSTRATE. It does not explain anything. Newton’s laws provide the required explanation.
Dud knows how to copy/paste. He learned that in keyboard school.
But, he doesn’t understand the text.
He’s braindead.
Pup has NOTHING, but that NOTHING, he sure can repeat it!
Already 110 times in this thread!
Troll Willard has desperately referenced a source that explains why the “ball-on-a-string” is a valid analogy of orbital motion. But, he doesn’t understand his own link!
Once they accept the ball-on-a-string, their Moon rotation nonsense is shattered.
I’m getting tired of this Moon discussion, but their meltdown is so much fun to watch.
> has desperately referenced a source
It’s Kiddo’s source, Pup.
Do keep up.
You desperately referenced it, Dud.
Try to keep up.
I quoted from Kiddo’s cite a bit that contradicts his contention that tidal locking stopped the Moon, Pup.
You’re not very good at this.
Yes, you desperately referenced it, Dud.
Try to keep up.
Beating you with your own stick using my left hand is not desperation, Pup.
Clint R,
And his hands are tied behind his back, he is blindfolded, and he is hung upside down in a straight jacket.
You gotta put up a better fight.
Given a source, Folkerts goes right for the nonsense, skipping over any reality.
He’s on it like a fly on cow poop.
How do you feel about Kiddo citing a source saying that the Moon’s spin has slowed down but hasn’t stopped, Pup?
I feel that you should stop being a useless troll, grow up, and get a job.
Said the troll.
F10.7 cm daily solar flux update
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OnJ0HPqxdlxp3_9Jm0oZRUMGGvrxMFLR/view
Source
ftp://ftp.seismo.nrcan.gc.ca/spaceweather/solar_flux/daily_flux_values/fluxtable.txt
Sea ice extent update
1. Arctic
– absolute
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1J9kx750_CtARv4sKfXBddRnkZm3E2U4v/view
– departures
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QBlh325tHF-4NRlWsHf_6sgskO_ipyse/view
*
2. Antarctic
– absolute
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1BY_ACQnX5hfQbvPAih6YTzsYEISTatTO/view
– departures
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PdqOctb7zaMgvdMdX2sId1g_o7U13mM-/view
Source
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/data/N_seaice_extent_daily_v3.0.csv
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/south/daily/data/S_seaice_extent_daily_v3.0.csv
It is pretty amazing to see that while Pseudoskeptics have no problem to show
” Another source using a ball on a string to help explain orbital motion: ”
https://www.astronomynotes.com/gravappl/s8.htm
they have also no problem at all to carefully hide
” Gravity acts both ways so the Earth has been creating tidal bulges on the Moon and has slowed its rotation down so much that it rotates once every orbital period. The Moon keeps one face always toward the Earth. ”
and
” Since the Earth’s angular momentum is decreasing, the Moon’s angular momentum must increase to keep the overall angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system the same. The concept of angular momentum is discussed further in the Angular Momentum appendix. ”
https://www.astronomynotes.com/gravappl/s10.htm
https://www.astronomynotes.com/angmom/s1.htm
It is absolutely clear that while the authors were plain right when writing page s8, they were conversely utterly wrong when writing page s10, weren’t they?
Ha! Life is so pretty simple when you just need to dissimulate or distort everything what doesn’t fit to your personal narrative!
“It is absolutely clear that while the authors were plain right when writing page s8, they were conversely utterly wrong when writing page s10, weren’t they?”
Not utterly wrong, Bindidon.
“Gravity acts both ways so the Earth has been creating tidal bulges on the Moon and has slowed its rotation down so much that it rotates once every orbital period. The Moon keeps one face always toward the Earth”
Rotating once every orbital period, converted from the “Spinner” perspective to the “Non-Spinner” perspective, would be not rotating on its own axis. So it should read like this:
“Gravity acts both ways so the Earth has been creating tidal bulges on the Moon and has slowed its rotation down so much that it no longer rotates on its own axis. The Moon keeps one face always toward the Earth”
Just a minor change needed. No need to throw the baby out with the bath water.
I repeat
” Ha! Life is so pretty simple when you just need to dissimulate or distort everything what doesnt fit to your personal narrative! “
Personally, I do not expect to agree with every word that an author says…and if I happen to disagree with an author on one thing, it does not mean I assume that author is wrong about everything…or if I agree with an author on some point, it does not mean I assume that author is right about everything. But that is just me.
“and if I happen to disagree with an author on one thing, it does not mean I assume that author is wrong about everything”
Do you realize what you said? If you happen to disagree with an author on one thing, it does mean you assume that *he* is wrong on that one thing.
No need to find an error. He is wrong and you are right because … well, you just assume it.
Well, that is not what I meant, Tim. Yes, you need to find the error.
Does it even occur to you that maybe *YOU* need to find the error? That maybe the 1000’s of people who do this for a living *MIGHT* understand this better than you?
Yes, Tim. That is what I just said.
“That is what I just said”
That others understand things better than you? Sure thing.
That “you” meaning, me, you, everyone, needs to find the error.
The error is you and your brethren.
Grow up and shut up.
DREMT melts down yet again. Fun to watch.
No meltdown here, sorry. Just telling it like it is.
Ok, DREMT has recovered from the recent melt down, I look forward to the next one by DREMT since they seem to happen fairly regularly when DREMT gets rightfully corrected – adding to the usual entertainment.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
I’ve never trolled.
Correcting DREMT is fun while Willard is right we need better cranks for a bigger challenge.
#2
Ball4, please stop trolling.
DREMT: “Just a minor change needed. No need to throw the baby out with the bath water.”
I dare ya to write to the author of that website and ask him what he thinks of your ‘correction.
Folkerts, I dare you to own up to your own nonsense that ice cubes can boil water.
I dare you to actually show anywhere that I said anything about ice cubes boiling water.
Folkerts, you refrained from actually admitting it when you got caught. But, your nonsense was your undoing.
If two ice cubes can raise the temperature to 325K, by that same nonsense, 4 ice cubes can boil water.
If you want to deny your own nonsense, that’s fine. Start here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2020-0-57-deg-c/#comment-543564
Clint, you are ONCE AGAIN quoting me saying that the sun + ice cam warm something above the temperature of ice.
The sun is not ice.
And you are trying to spin away from your nonsense by claiming 315W/m^2 is not the same as 315W/m^2.
Icelight is different from sunlight in important ways, even if they both are 315 W/m^2, Clint. I am sure you know that.
Careful Folkerts, as you rewrite the laws of physics. You’re on the verge of putting another nail in the coffin of the AGW nonsense. Now you’re trying to claim sunlight is different from CO2-light!
Your cult might excommunicate you.
Clint R,
Well he is taking your laws of Physics and rewriting them back to where they should be.
You and your stupid ice cubes, which is a perversion of the laws of physics.
Now braindead bob hates ice cubes.
He hates all reality. That’s a requirement of most cults.
Not true, I like ice cubes, makes my martinis cold.
I just don’t like your perversion of Wien’s Displacement Law.
It applies to black-bodies, not to CO2 gas molecules in the atmosphere.
Figure that out and you might learn something.
I’ll bet on the under.
I dare you to weigh in on what constitutes an inertial reference frame, Tim.
As far as Swanson and bdgwx are concerned, so long as the coordinate system axes remain pointed in the direction of fixed stars, you can put the origin of your reference frame through the center of mass of the Earth, or the moon, for example, and it is still an inertial reference frame.
According to bob, if you put the origin of your reference frame through the CoM of the Earth, or the moon, that is an accelerating object, and thus it is a non-inertial reference frame.
So…who is correct, Tim, in your opinion?
DREMPTY,
I thought you already knew what Tim’s position on this was.
Coward.
I think I do, but I like to double-check things.
Bind-idiot, explain how Earth transfers angular momentum to Moon.
(That would be a hoot!)
Explaining things to people like you is a waste of time: regardless what one writes, you will always distort, discredit and denigrate everything what you don’t want to see.
Well, you have plenty of time to troll this blog, Bin. You have plenty of time to throw out your worthless graphs. You have plenty of time to tell us about all the sci-fi writers from centuries ago.
But, you don’t have time to support the links you find?
And, don’t forget to provide your “best proof” that Moon rotates.
Of course you won’t provide anything. You have NOTHING.
You’re just another braindead cult idiot.
Clint R,
Let’s put the shoe on the other foot.
You can’t prove the isn’t rotating because you can’t prove a negative.
Sorry bob, reality is not a negative.
Except to brain dead cult idiots.
Braindead cult idiot such as Clint R, DREMT and GR think that they define reality whereas they are just stupid in fact.
I just happen to think that saying the moon does not rotate on its own axis is a far less silly claim than saying Mt. Everest is rotating on its own axis.
“I just happen to think that saying the moon does not rotate on its own axis is a far less silly”
You think silly statements cancel? Your silly about the Moon is still wrong, no matter what silly thing anybody else does.
Just own it, and quit whatabouting.
Troll Nate, Braindead-idon is having trouble coming up with his “best proof” the Moon rotates.
Maybe you would like to help him. What’s the ‘best proof” Moon rotates?
I won’t hold my breath….
> Mt. Everest is rotating on its own axis.
Not false:
https://www.sidmartinbio.org/what-is-the-normal-direction-for-movement-of-mt-everest-each-year/
I just happen to think that saying the moon does not rotate on its own axis is a far less silly claim than saying Mt. Everest is rotating on its own axis, once per day.
DREMT is just stupid and wrong all the time.
In fact, saying the moon does not rotate on its own axis isn’t silly at all. Unlike the Mt. Everest claim.
binny…” Since the Earths angular momentum is decreasing, the Moons angular momentum must increase to keep the overall angular momentum of the Earth-Moon system the same”.
***
Typical drivel from an astronomer.
1)The Moon has no angular momentum, just linear momentum. If gravity was turned off, the Moon would fly off on a straight line, not along the current orbital path. It would require angular momentum to do that.
2)How would the Moon gain momentum without a force being applied?
There is no ‘overall’ angular momentum. Neither the Earth nor the Moon have an angular momentum, both have only linear momenta. No angular momentum to conserve.
Angular momentum L = I(omega)
The Earth has a moment of inertia, I (approximately 2/5 MR^2)
The Earth has an angular velocity, (omega) (approximately 2pi radians every 24 hr)
Therefore, by the definition of angular momentum, the earth has some.
You can’t just declare that angular momentum doesn’t exist!
tim…”The Earth has a moment of inertia, I (approximately 2/5 MR^2)
The Earth has an angular velocity, (omega) (approximately 2pi radians every 24 hr) ”
***
We are talking about orbital motion, Tim, not the Earth’s axial rotation.
You didn’t specify orbital angular momentum. But that exists too!
Angular momentum can equivalently be defined as L = rxp
All orbits have a radius (that changes along the elliptical path).
All orbits have linear momentum (that also changes along the elliptical path).
Therefore, all orbits have angular momentum (which turns out to be constant). Indeed, conservation of orbital angular momentum is what leads to “equal areas in equal times).
tim…”All orbits have a radius (that changes along the elliptical path).
All orbits have linear momentum (that also changes along the elliptical path)”.
***
You have to keep in mind that the Moon is not following an orbital path, rather, the orbit is a resultant path created by an equilibrium condition between gravity and linear momentum. Therefore, the orbit would vary because either linear momentum has more effect or gravity has more effect.
I tried to lay it out in detail in one post and I don’t want to go through the entire post. However, linear momentum cannot change unless a force is applied or a force opposes the Moon to change its velocity.
AFAIAC, the only variable is gravity. I don’t know how the Moon was captured by the Earth, I don’t buy the argument that it was blown out of the Earth or that it began as a cloud of dust.
Consider, that the Moon may have approached the Earth at an angle and momentum that enabled it to go into orbit. If the momentum was just right, it would be pulled into a perfectly circular orbit where f = mv^2/r. Suppose, that mv was a little too much to balance that equation, then the Moon’s momentum would overcome gravity slightly and allow the orbit to elongate.
When the Moon came back around from the elongated portion, the effect of gravity would increase, causing the orbit to become more circular going around the principle focal point.
However, going back around that focal point, toward the elongated region, gravity weakens a bit allowing the Moon’s momentum to once again elongate the orbital path.
I explained how this works wrt a radial line from the Moon’s centre, pointing toward the principle focal point. The radial line extends from the near-face and is perpendicular to a tangent line at any point on the orbit.
With a circle, the radial line would point straight at the Earth’s centre but with an ellipse, it points slightly to either side of the Earth’s centre, enabling libration.
At the same time, the fact that it points to the side of the Earth means gravitational force acting on the near-face is not the full gravitational force but a sine/cosine component of it. That slight change in the force gives the Moon’s momentum a little more effect, hence the elongation in the orbit. The deviation of the radial line from Earth’s centre is maximum when the Moon is opposite to the Earth, and Newton noted that.
“Therefore, all orbits have angular momentum”
That’s wrong Folkerts. Earth has linear momentum, but NOT angular momentum. If gravity were instantaneously turned off, Moon would go off in a straight line.
As would the Earth from the Sun.
RLH actually gets something right.
Will Folkerts be able to learn from RLH?
“Earth has linear momentum, but NOT angular momentum. ”
Just curious — how do you define angular momentum, L? To be able to calculate L you need to know what it is.
Wikipedia proposes the following.
“In three dimensions, the angular momentum for a point particle is a pseudovector r p, the cross product of the particle’s position vector r (relative to some origin) and its momentum vector”
Do you agree? If not, what is YOUR definition? An actual equation we could calculate to determine the value of the earth’s or moon’s angular momentum.
So you agree that the Moon and the Earth are equal wrt the Sun. Both orbit it as
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/266426/what-does-the-moons-orbit-around-the-sun-look-like
shows
If gravity was turned off then both the Moon and the Earth go off it straight lines and continue to rotate around their own axis as they did so.
Folkerts, you’re NOT curious. You’re ignorant of physics.
Moon does not have angular momentum. You don’t know how to apply the basic equation. Misapplying that basic equation means that everything has angular momentum! In your perverted physics, Moon has angular momentum relative to Earth, Moon, Mars, all planets, all stars!
That ain’t how it works.
Clint R,
give me that shovel, it’s time to stop digging.
Well, unless that’s where you remember burying that physics textbook.
tim…”“In three dimensions, the angular momentum for a point particle is a pseudovector r p, the cross product of the particle’s position vector r (relative to some origin) and its momentum vector””
***
Note the reference to pseudo-vector in the z-direction. Also, the reference to ‘point particle’.
These guys and many others don’t understand the physical reality of the cross-product. It makes no sense physically unless applied to phenomena like an electrical conductor moving in a magnetic field. Or, a fluid turning in circles as a whirlpool. I think a tornado or a hurricane would apply as well.
In that case, you have a conductor carrying an electrical current moving perpendicular to a magnetic field. Say the magnetic field flows from the north pole of a magnet to the south pole, and the current carrying conductor is between the poles. If you form your right-hand so the thumb and forefinger are at right angles, and the middle finger extend perpendicular to the plane of both, you have the right-hand rule.
If you point the forefinger in the direction of the magnetic field and the thumb in the direction of the electrical current, the middle finger will point in the direction the conductor is moved. That is a basic principle in electric motors, explaining how the armature in moved by a current flowing in its coils. With a generator, the left-hand rule is applied in the same way.
The point is, there are actual motions going on in this problem and the cross-product can be applied. We have already agreed somewhat that the Earth has only linear momentum. I am claiming that the cross-product applied to the rotational plane of the Earth around the Sun makes no sense.
I think university profs get so caught up in the theory that many fail to grasp the physical reality. Applying the cross-product to the Earth’s motion around the Sun makes no sense to me since there is no motion perpendicular to that plane as required by the cross-product. In fact, Wiki calls it a pseudo-vector, meaning there is nothing there. .
Momentum is obviously mv and with the Earth, it is along a tangential line at any instant. There is never a momentum along the orbital curve as there would be if the Earth was attached by a rigid arm to the Sun.
In other words, angular momentum requires a physical, rigid attachment between a mass and an axis.
Looks like we need a big ass lazy susan and a leaded bicycle wheel.
Best way to explain what angular momentum is, and how orbital angular momentum can be transferred to rotational angular momentum.
A prop usually found in a high school physics class.
Might be some here have not taken high school physics.
“You cant just declare that angular momentum doesnt exist!”
Yep. But thats just sooo Gordon.
Troll Nate, this will seem like an unsolvable riddle to you:
Moon has no orbital angular momentum, yet the ball, of ball-on-a-string, has orbital angular momentum. Why the difference?
People that understand the science will be able to answer correctly and quickly. Braindead cult idiots won’t have a clue.
A ball-on-a-string only applies to a ball-on-a-string.
Someone that is braindead and can’t learn is someone that is braindead and can’t learn.
That applies to you for sure.
Clint poses a riddle with a false premise “Moon has no orbital angular momentum”
And wonders why it cant be solved?
Clint seems to have fully embraced his buffoon persona.
binny…” Gravity acts both ways so the Earth has been creating tidal bulges on the Moon and has slowed its rotation down so much that it rotates once every orbital period. The Moon keeps one face always toward the Earth. ”
***
Where’s the proof? There is no force acting opposite the theorized direction of rotation to slow the Moon down. Claiming tidal forces can slow the Moon, or the Earth around the Sun, is nothing more than a hypothesis.
Tidal forces should theoretically pull the Earth and Moon closer together. Even if the motion was very slight over a very long time, the change in orbital altitude would require a change in the Moon’s velocity to accommodate the new orbit. That cannot happen without a force acting opposite to the Moon linear direction.
That’s not what is being claimed, it is being claimed that the Moon is moving away from the Earth. Overall, I think the theories and the physics is wrong.
The “laws of physics” are well established. But science has been taken over by cultists, and they have been perverting science for decades. They teach a full curriculum of “false physics”. We see it here in the AGW nonsense, and the Moon rotation nonsense. The braindead soak it up and regurgitate it over and over.
Cultist idiots like you would know science or physics if they bit you.
Cultist idiots like you wouldn’t know science or physics if they bit you.
You got it right the first time.
The last time is the best.
rlh…”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.”
***
Rectilinear translation is loosely defined as all particles in a body moving along straight, parallel lines at the same velocity. Applied to a curve, we need the same type of parallel motion for each particle, and they must all move at the same ANGULAR velocity.
Rotation requires an axis, either internal or external. Translation along a curve requires no axis other than an imaginary axis for analysis at any instant. Any point on a curve, and any instant, can be analyzed as motion along an equivalent circle with the same arc shape of the curve at that point. The radius of the circle and the tangent line perpendicular to the radial line then defines the motion at that one instant.
My use of a radial line with perpendicular/tangent lines meets that definition for translation along a curved line. All particles on the Moon are moving in concentric circles (orbits) and concentric circles are in parallel.
The angular velocity of the radial line meets the requirement of constant angular velocity. All parts of a radial line must move through 360 degrees in the same time, therefore all parts of the Moon must orbit in the same time.
A common mistake made by spinners is using the tangential velocity of particles on the Moon, which move at different speeds, dependent on their location on the radial line. However, with a uniform, rigid body like the Moon, individual partical speeds are irrelevant. It is the COG that determines the Moon’s velocity. That is immaterial, since it is the angular velocity of the radial line that is important, and it is constant.
Therefore, the Moon’s motion is curvilinear translation. Some spinners object to the word curvilinear based on examples they have seen in mechanical engineering textbooks. I base those incorrect examples on the same paradigm prevalent in electrical engineering that electrical current flows positive to negative. Whoever wrote the textbooks had a preconceived and limited understanding of curvilinear translation.
All curvilinear means is that a body is translating along a curve rather than along a straight line. Each ‘instant’ of motion along a curve is a straight line motion and at that point, all points on the Moon are performing rectilinear translation. Therefore, there is little difference between curvilinear and rectilinear translation, and the textbooks offer a seriously limited example of it.
I have emphasized several times that the instantaneous motion of the Moon is a constant linear velocity. At each instant, that vector is moving through a gravitational field which is exerting a slight force on the vector, altering its direction slightly. It is that re-orientation of the vector that is being mistaken for local rotation. The vector can be claimed to be rotating about the Earth but it is not rotating about the COG of the Moon.
In fact, the instantaneous velocity vector of the COG is moving parallel to velocity vectors at the near face and the far face. Since they are all attached to the radial line they are all moving at a constant angular velocity. That is the angle the vectors make with the x-axis are all changing at the same rate. In fact, they are all the same angle.
“That is immaterial, since it is the angular velocity of the radial line that is important, and it is constant.:
Which radial line are you referring to? It seems you mean the radial line from the earth to the moon, but this does NOT move with constant angular velocity.
tim…”Which radial line are you referring to? It seems you mean the radial line from the earth to the moon, but this does NOT move with constant angular velocity”.
***
It does if the orbit is circular. Even if its elliptical, the radial line always rotates through 360 degrees in the same time each month. Angular velocity is the number of radians per unit time. Each particle covers the same number of radians/unit time.
Therefore, any particles on the Moon along that radial line must rotate in the same time each month. That is, at a constant ANGULAR velocity wrt the orbital path.
As Kepler claimed, that radial line sweeps out equal areas in equal times. Overall, however, over the entire orbit, the radial line rotates at a constant velocity/month.
Even with the definition of rectilinear translation, the particles are required to move with the same velocity in parallel. However, this does not mean the mass cannot change velocity, it means the particles cannot change velocity wrt each other.
If I want to translate from a to e along the x-axis, I can have stops at b, c and d, while still claiming the motion as rectilinear translation, even though the mass velocity starts and stops. As long as all particles in the mass complete the translation in the same time, it’s rectilinear translation.
“Each particle covers the same number of radians/unit time.”
Nope! When the moon is near the earth (perigee) the moon as a whole covers more radians per second than when the moon is farthest from the earth (apogee). The orbit changes linear speed and changes angular speed.
Now, it WOULD be true that each particle rotates art the same rate measured from the moon’s axis. But then we are back to concluding that the COM of the moon MOVES around the earth, and the moon ROTATES around its own axis.
“Even with the definition of rectilinear translation, the particles are required to move with the same velocity in parallel. However, this does not mean the mass cannot change velocity, it means the particles cannot change velocity wrt each other.”
This is good. What you can’t seem to grasp it that if each particle indeed moves the same velocity in parallel, the particles MUST retain their original orientation.
The “particles” of a MGR horse do NOT have the same velocity, so this is NOT an example of rectilinear translation. Same fr a tidally locked moon in a perfectly circular orbit.
“The “particles” of a MGR horse do NOT have the same velocity, so this is NOT an example of rectilinear translation”
True. Instead, the MGR horse is rotating about an axis in the center of the MGR, and not on its own internal axis.
… wrt to the mgr.
Two options, which apply regardless of reference frames:
1) The wooden horse is rotating around the center of the MGR, and not on its own internal axis.
2) The wooden horse is translating in a circle, whilst rotating on its own internal axis.
You just have to understand the difference between rotation about an external axis, and translation in a circle.
No, DREMT admitted there is no absolute motion now that the aether is known not to exist so DREMT just has to understand all motion is relative thus “regardless of reference frames” is wrong.
The fixed MGR horse is rotating about an axis in the center of the MGR, and not on its own internal axis wrt to the mgr.
Translation in a circle is curvilinear translation.
No absolute motion, because I acknowledged two different ways of describing the same motion. Yes, translation in a circle would be curvilinear translation. Well done, you got one thing right.
1) The fixed wooden horse is rotating around the center of the MGR, and not on its own internal axis wrt to the mgr.
2) The wooden horse is translating in a circle, whilst rotating on its own internal axis once wrt to the room containing the mgr.
Not too bad. You are at least starting to learn that the only way you can describe the wooden horse as rotating on its own axis, wrt “the inertial reference frame”, or any other way, is if you describe its motion as a combination of curvilinear translation, plus internal axis rotation.
An erroneous description, since it physically cannot rotate on its own axis. You’ll get there.
Fixed hobby horse physically cannot rotate on its own axis wrt to the mgr. You’ll get there now that you have acknowledged reference frames: “no absolute motion”.
No, it physically cannot rotate on its own axis, period. Have the MGR motionless. The wooden horse physically cannot rotate on its own axis wrt anything.
MGR with fixed hobby horse not rotating wrt to the room:
1) The fixed wooden horse is now not rotating around the center of the MGR, and not rotating on its own internal axis wrt to the mgr.
2) The wooden horse is not translating in a circle wrt to the room, whilst not rotating on its own internal axis wrt to the room containing the mgr.
With the MGR motionless, the wooden horse physically cannot rotate on its own axis wrt anything. That’s the physical reality of the wooden horse. It does not change, just because the MGR starts rotating.
The mgr room, being fixed to earth north pole, is not rotating wrt to earth but the assembly is rotating wrt to the fixed stars once per earthen day. Thus both the attached mgr and fixed wooden horse are rotating on their own axes wrt to the fixed stars.
Thus it is wrong to write: “The wooden horse physically cannot rotate on its own axis wrt anything.” You will get there now that you have acknowledged reference frames.
If the MGR room were on the North Pole, with the MGR room axis in direct alignment with the Earth’s rotational axis, and the MGR’s axis itself also in direct alignment with the Earth’s rotational axis, then the axis of the wooden horse would not be in direct alignment with the Earth’s rotational axis.
Hence with everything at rest besides the Earth itself, the MGR room is rotating on its own axis once per day, the MGR itself is rotating on its own axis once per day, and the wooden horse is rotating about the Earth’s rotational axis once per day (and not on its own internal axis).
I didn’t specify the location of my fixed wooden horse: my wooden horse is exactly located over the center of the mgr.
So, my fixed wooden horse IS rotating on its own axis once per earthen day wrt to the fixed stars.
Now, if you move my fixed wooden horse off center of the mgr, the rotation on its own axis is NOT cancelled wrt to the stars, you now have the wooden horse also translating in a circle wrt to the room, not rotating on its own axis wrt to the mgr.
You are beginning to get there now that you have acknowledged reference frames; relativity is hard – for example it has taken DREMT something like 3 years to get to this point: a 400 level course.
This is why universities don’t let you take 400 level courses for credit until you pass all the 100, 200, and 300 level course pre-req.s.
"I didn’t specify the location of my fixed wooden horse: my wooden horse is exactly located over the center of the mgr."
In which absurdly extreme case the MGR room, MGR itself and the wooden horse would all be rotating on their own axes once per day.
"Now, if you move my fixed wooden horse off center of the mgr, the rotation on its own axis is NOT cancelled wrt to the stars, you now have the wooden horse also translating in a circle wrt to the room, not rotating on its own axis wrt to the mgr."
Ah, but the motion of the off center wooden horse is not a translation plus a rotation on its own internal axis, because there is no physical mechanism in place to rotate the wooden horse on its own axis whilst translating it in a circle. The only physical mechanism in place is the rotation of the Earth, and all that can do is rotate the otherwise motionless wooden horse about the Earth’s rotational axis. So that is what is occurring.
“In which absurdly extreme case the MGR room, MGR itself and the wooden horse would all be rotating on their own axes once per day.”
YES. You now disavow your recent: “The wooden horse physically cannot rotate on its own axis wrt anything.”
Welcome to relativity.
You still have more work to do to pass this 400-level relativity course but you have made a lot of progress.
I stand by everything I’ve said, disavow nothing, have always understood relativity, and have always acknowledged reference frames. They just don’t settle the moon issue.
Put the wooden horse on a MGR anywhere on the MGR besides the center, and the MGR itself anywhere on Earth besides the poles. Have the MGR motionless. The wooden horse physically cannot rotate on its own axis wrt anything.
See, DREMT agrees DREMT has more work to do to pass this 400-level relativity course.
First DREMT writes: “The wooden horse physically cannot rotate on its own axis wrt anything.” then DREMT writes: “the wooden horse would all be rotating on their own axes once per day.”
Enough lessons for now DREMT; do try to retain what you have learned, and the progress you made, I’ll be watching and correcting when necessary.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
https://youtu.be/ImM9cg6vk1w?t=606
As soon as the object you observe stops being in the same frame of reference as you, you will notice a difference, whether it is motionless or not. And that also applies to synchronized movements, like the Moon’s spin and the Moon’s orbit.
Put the wooden horse on a MGR anywhere on the MGR besides the center, and the MGR itself anywhere on Earth besides the poles. Have the MGR motionless. The wooden horse physically cannot rotate on its own axis wrt anything. Thats the physical reality of the wooden horse. It does not change, just because the MGR starts rotating.
DREMPTY,
IF
“I stand by everything I’ve said, disavow nothing, have always understood relativity, and have always acknowledged reference frames. They just don’t settle the moon issue.”
THEN
You would be able to state the difference between an inertial reference frame and a non-inertial reference frame, from the top of your head in, like two seconds.
Can you do it?
An inertial reference frame is a coordinate system where the system axes remain oriented towards fixed objects such as the distant stars. A non-inertial reference frame is a coordinate system that undergoes acceleration with respect to the inertial frame.
DREMPTY,
Sorry but that is not quite correct.
An inertial reference frame is one where the origin is either moving at a constant rate, or stationary, specifically not accelerating.
Pointing to the fixed stars is a result of the origin being stationary and not accelerating.
But if an inertial reference frame is moving at a constant rate and not accelerating, the axes will not remain pointing at the fixed stars.
Now it’s time for you to admit you were wrong.
Thanks for the quick response though.
Better bone up on your physics.
Maybe you can ask Time if I am correct, he’s qualified, you are not.
You could have just copy pasted what I said yesterday.
"An inertial reference frame is one where the origin is either moving at a constant rate, or stationary, specifically not accelerating."
Then when Swanson said:
"…the Center of Mass of the Earth, which is the proper location to be used for the origin of the inertial reference frame"
He was wrong. I asked Tim to comment on this issue, earlier, but he didn’t respond.
DREMPTY,
Maybe you should look things up for yourself.
Bah, what am I saying.
Kiddo can’t even bring himself to look at the clip I timestamped for him, Bob.
Too busy trolling with more than 10% of the thread comments, it seems.
What’s funny is that the "Spinners" on here can’t even agree with each other on what constitutes an inertial reference frame…
Kiddo can’t bring himself to understand Bob’s point, so of course he believes that there’s a contradiction…
Let us see if Tim will respond to a little reminder:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-985285
He can throw Swanson and bdgwx under the bus, or he can throw bob…a difficult decision for him, sure, but he cannot ignore it forever…
DREMPTY,
Why take Tim’s word for it, why demand that he responds to your childish tantrums, why do you need such attention?
Why can’t you look it up yourself?
Here, I’ll do it for you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference
Bit of a childish tantrum there, bob.
OK, let’s say you are correct. That means bdgwx and Swanson are wrong, first of all…but let’s say you are the one that is correct. You want to calculate the angular velocity of the Earth about its own axis, relative to an inertial reference frame. Where do you put the origin of your inertial reference frame?
DREMPTY,
“Where do you put the origin of your inertial reference frame?”
That might be a good question, or a stupid question.
Put it on a line oriented towards a distant star.
You could put it on Earth somewhere, but you have to realize that it won’t stay there.
But then you might realize that it is not an optical illusion that measurements using that reference frame would show that the Moon is rotating about its axis once every 29.530589 days.
Wow, that’s some precision.
Notice that bob can’t answer the question.
Notice that DREMPTY doesn’t understand that I did answer the question, indicating that DREMPTY is still ignorant about reference frames.
The point being that you can’t put the origin of an inertial reference frame on the Earth or the Moon, since both of those are accelerating.
You did not provide an actual, physical location for the origin of your inertial reference frame, bob. You just waffled.
The fact is, the only place you could put the origin of your inertial reference frame, in order to calculate the angular velocity of the Earth about its axis, would be the CoM of Earth.
You keep to this ultra-strict definition of inertial such that your reference frame would serve no useful purpose. With the origin through the CoM of Earth, however, and the coordinate system axes always oriented towards fixed stars, the reference frame would be translating, but most importantly not rotating wrt inertial space.
If you still wish to continue to disagree with Swanson, bdgwx, and anyone else that understands that reference frames actually need to serve a purpose, then you can provide an actual, physical location for the origin of your inertial reference frame.
DREMPTY,
Just look it up.
You are wrong.
An inertial reference frame has to be centered on something that is not accelerating. That’s the requirement.
Therefore it cannot be centered on the the center of mass of the Earth.
you said
“If you still wish to continue to disagree with Swanson, bdgwx, and anyone else that understands that reference frames actually need to serve a purpose, then you can provide an actual, physical location for the origin of your inertial reference frame.”
Inertial reference frames do serve a purpose, you just need to know how to use them.
I can name a physical location for the origin of an inertial reference frame, but doing so limits the size of the system we are talking about.
If I use the center of mass of the Earth, that limits the system to the Earth, and can’t answer the question of whether or not the Moon is rotating.
Put it at the center of the Sun, but limit the system to the solar system, then it shows the Moon is rotating on its axis relative to that inertial reference frame in that system.
I don’t care if you think others disagree with me, they are wrong, you are wrong, I am with Einstein on this topic.
Einstein is right and so am I.
"I can name a physical location for the origin of an inertial reference frame…if I use the center of mass of the Earth…put it at the center of the Sun"
bob immediately starts contradicting himself by saying that he could put the origin through the center of mass of the Earth (which is accelerating) or through the center of the Sun (which is also accelerating). So bob…where are you going to put the origin of your inertial reference frame? You can’t put it in either of the places you said, according to your own understanding. Please try again.
DREMPTY,
You didn’t notice the conditions I put on putting the origin of the inertial reference frame on either the center of mass of the Sun or of the Earth.
Which means I didn’t contradict myself and that you are just a stupid troll who won’t look things up.
DREMPTY,
And I already answered where to put the origin of an inertial reference frame.
“Put it on a line oriented towards a distant star.”
Asked and answered.
You contradicted yourself, bob, and now you’re in full meltdown. Either you can put the origin of an inertial reference frame through the center of mass of a celestial body, or you can’t. Make up your mind.
"Put it on a line oriented towards a distant star"
At which physical location?
DREMPTY
“Put it on a line oriented towards a distant star”
That’s a physical location.
You didn’t understand the conditions I put on locating an inertial reference frame on the center of mass of the Earth or Sun.
That’s not my problem, that’s you being an idiot.
Please continue, you are amusing, but stupid, like a clown.
Stop being stupid, start looking things up and studying.
But that’s too hard isn’t it.
“Put it on a line oriented towards a distant star…”
…is not a physical location. Where is the line located?
"You didn’t understand the conditions I put on locating an inertial reference frame on the center of mass of the Earth or Sun."
You just said, of putting the origin at the center of the Sun "but limit the system to the solar system". That was it. You listed no "conditions", just "limit the system to the solar system". OK, so if I say in future that all systems are limited to the solar system, you should have no problem with me, bdgwx, Swanson or anybody else putting the origin of an inertial reference frame through the center of mass of any celestial body. Right?
DREMPTY,
Good God you are fucking stupid, that’s all I can say.
“You just said, of putting the origin at the center of the Sun “but limit the system to the solar system”. That was it. You listed no “conditions”, just “limit the system to the solar system”.
Limiting it to the Solar System is a condition, just how stupid are you?
“OK, so if I say in future that all systems are limited to the solar system, you should have no problem with me, bdgwx, Swanson or anybody else putting the origin of an inertial reference frame through the center of mass of any celestial body. Right?”
If and only if, and in each and every case, you or anyone else specifies a condition where the inertial reference frame would be valid.
It would generally not be valid to center an inertial reference frame on any orbiting body. Because orbiting bodies are accelerating, or are you like Gordon and think orbiting bodies are not accelerating because they only have linear momentum?
It’s plain and pretty simple, an inertial reference frame must not be accelerating. It can be stationary or moving with constant velocity.
If it is centered on an accelerating body, then it is a non inertial reference frame.
If you don’t get it, see your therapist.
Yes, OK, bob. "Limiting it to the solar system" is your one, very vague, very unexplained condition.
In which case you can assume in advance that all inertial reference frames with the origin centered on the celestial body are limited to the solar system. There. Problem solved.
So all of this was a massive fuss over absolutely nothing.
DREMPTY,
“In which case you can assume in advance that all inertial reference frames with the origin centered on the celestial body are limited to the solar system. There. Problem solved.”
No you can’t, and problem not solved.
You are just verifying that you don’t understand reference frames, or if you do, you are just faking your lack of understanding.
Keep digging.
bob doesn’t even understand when he’s being mocked.
I am just making fun of your "conditions", bob. You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about, and you just make up stuff as you go. You don’t understand reference frames, and you are in disagreement with the majority of your fellow "Spinners" on this issue. I am only here arguing on their behalf, because they apparently lack the backbone to do it themselves.
“With the origin through the CoM of Earth, however, and the coordinate system axes always oriented towards fixed stars, the reference frame would be translating”
Wow!
It sure looks like DREMT is concluding that the Earth’s axial rotation rate is its rotation rate wrt to the stars!
And it sure sounds like DREMT is saying the Earth is Translating in its orbit!
Thus, an orbit is Translation!
I am only here arguing on their behalf, because they apparently lack the backbone to do it themselves.
IOW, have your cake and eat it to?
#2
I am only here arguing on their behalf, because they apparently lack the backbone to do it themselves.
Yep DREMT wants to appear to agree with science, that rotation of bodies is measured wrt the stars, and thus the Earth’s axial rotation period is its sidereal period of 23h 56 min.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-fast-is-the-earth-mov/#:~:text=The%20earth%20rotates%20once%20every,circumference%20is%20roughly%2040%2C075%20kilometers.
But he also wants to insist we must measure Earths rotation wrt the Sun, giving the Earth an axial rotation period of 24 h.
But of course, the two views are inconsistent.
And he wants to claim that an orbit includes rotation, but here he wants to claim that an orbit is just translation.
As usual, caught in contradictions, he tries to have it both ways.
#3
I am only here arguing on their behalf, because they apparently lack the backbone to do it themselves.
DREMPTY,
“I am just making fun of your “conditions”, bob. You dont have a clue what youre talking about, and you just make up stuff as you go. You dont understand reference frames, ”
Look it up, and get back to me when you understand the difference between inertial and non-inertial reference frames.
I provided you links that support my position.
Here I go again
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference
You might learn something, but you need some pre-requisite work.
Like eighth grade science
…yes, many links, bob…and yet, you still have provided no actual, physical location for the origin of your inertial reference frame. If you keep thinking about it, you might eventually realize why you have to put the origin through the center of mass of actual, physical objects, like celestial bodies. Regardless of the fact they are accelerating…you’ll get there, little one. Just keep thinking, keep learning, keep improving yourself.
If you still disagree, argue it out with Swanson or bdgwx.
DREMPTY,
you say
“yes, many links, boband yet, you still have provided no actual, physical location for the origin of your inertial reference frame.”
All that means is you didn’t read and understand the link
“the notion of frame of reference has reappeared as a structure distinct from a coordinate system.”
You got that?
It’s not required to actually locate a reference frame on a physical location.
RTFR
Read the … report
Britannica – Reference Frame:
"The reference frames used in dynamics are known as coordinate systems with axes (lines) emanating from a point known as the origin."
I assumed we were talking about the reference frames used in dynamics.
DREMPTY,
Why did you assume that?
There is more than one kind of reference frame.
We were talking about reference frames that apply to celestial bodies, not dynamics.
Do keep up, and RTFR.
You should have kept reading, not stopped thinking you have something.
“Strictly speaking, Newtons laws of motion are valid only in a coordinate system at rest with respect to the fixed stars. Such a system is known as a Newtonian, or inertial reference, frame. The laws are also valid in any set of rigid axes moving with constant velocity and without rotation relative to the inertial frame; this concept is known as the principle of Newtonian or Galilean relativity. A coordinate system attached to the Earth is not an inertial reference frame because the Earth rotates and is accelerated with respect to the Sun. Although the solutions to most engineering problems can be obtained to a satisfactory degree of accuracy by assuming that an Earth-based reference frame is an inertial one, there are some applications in which the rotation of the Earth cannot be neglected; among these is the operation of a gyroscopic compass. (See centrifugal force; Coriolis force.)”
From your Britannica
Yes, I did read that, thanks.
You can put the origin of your inertial reference frame through the center of mass of the body, so long as the coordinate system axes are pointing towards fixed stars. If not, where else are you going to put your origin (you still cannot answer)?
If you still disagree, argue it out with bdgwx and Swanson.
DREMPTY,
If you put it at the center of mass of a celestial object, at time = 0, where will the origin be at time = 1 day?
And I have already answered this
“If not, where else are you going to put your origin (you still cannot answer)?”
Anywhere that is not accelerating.
Is that simple enough for you?
Did you read this part?
“A coordinate system attached to the Earth is not an inertial reference frame because the Earth rotates and is accelerated with respect to the Sun”
Anyway, the Moon rotates with respect to an inertial reference frame.
What’s your best argument against that statement?
“If you put it at the center of mass of a celestial object, at time = 0, where will the origin be at time = 1 day?”
Still at the center of mass of the celestial object. The origin moves with the celestial object, whilst the coordinate system axes remain oriented towards the fixed stars. That is the only way you can actually use the reference frame in the way it is intended to be used.
My best argument against the statement, “Anyway, the Moon rotates with respect to an inertial reference frame” is, “you could argue that Mt. Everest is rotating on its own axis wrt an inertial reference frame, yet it obviously is not”. You see, to most people it is self-evident that Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis, rather it is rotating about the Earth’s axis. But then, you are particularly blind to physical reality in this area, so that argument will be wasted on you.
DREMPTY,
“Still at the center of mass of the celestial object. The origin moves with the celestial object, whilst the coordinate system axes remain oriented towards the fixed stars. That is the only way you can actually use the reference frame in the way it is intended to be used.”
Then it’s not an inertial reference frame, it’s a non-inertial reference frame.
See, it seems that you don’t understand the difference.
“My best argument against the statement, “Anyway, the Moon rotates with respect to an inertial reference frame” is, “you could argue that Mt. Everest is rotating on its own axis wrt an inertial reference frame, yet it obviously is not”. You see, to most people it is self-evident that Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis, rather it is rotating about the Earth’s axis. But then, you are particularly blind to physical reality in this area, so that argument will be wasted on you.”
If your best argument is “yet it obviously is not”, “it is self evident”, and “you are particularly blind to physical reality”,
you are not making an argument.
That means you lose again.
pups almost gets it. Considering the rotation of a celestial body, the placement of the origin doesn’t matter. That’s because the rotation is measured as a 3-D vector and that vector points in the same direction in all inertial reference frames, i.e., those vectors are all parallel.
Place the origin at the main focus of the Moon’s orbit and the X Axis along the semi-major axis of the ellipse. Place the Y Axis at 90 degrees RH to the X Axis and lying within the orbit plane. The Moon clearly rotates using that coordinate system, which is nearly an inertial reference frame (the orbital plane precesses with a period of ~18.6 yrs).
The fact is that the Moon rotates once an orbit.
“Still at the center of mass of the celestial object. The origin moves with the celestial object, whilst the coordinate system axes remain oriented towards the fixed stars. That is the only way you can actually use the reference frame in the way it is intended to be used.”
If you insist, we can apply that to the Moon. Then it Clearly rotates on its axis in that frame!
So glad that one is settled!
Swanson, you and bob disagree on what constitutes an inertial reference frame. I think you two should have the integrity to debate each other on that topic, which is the actual subject of this particular discussion.
The moon only appears to rotate on its own axis wrt an inertial reference frame. Just like Mt. Everest, it is not actually rotating on its own axis.
DREMPTY,
There is no disagreement between me and Swanson on what inertial and non-inertial reference frames are.
Here is what he said
“the placement of the origin doesnt matter.”
That’s the same as what I have been arguing with you.
DREMPTY only appears to understand inertial and non-inertial reference frames, in reality he does not.
Upthread, Swanson said, “…the Center of Mass of the Earth, which is the proper location to be used for the origin of the inertial reference frame”. He indicated that you can put the origin of an inertial reference frame through the CoM of a celestial body. According to you, that would make it a non-inertial frame of reference. You two directly disagree with each other.
Now, please have the integrity to debate over your differences.
“Here is what he said
“the placement of the origin doesnt matter.””
…and here is what I said, upthread:
“You can use any location you like for the origin of your inertial reference frame, Swanson.”
Means the same thing. It is actually me and Swanson that agree on what constitutes an inertial reference frame. You and Swanson disagree. You, bob, are the one who does not understand the difference between an inertial and a non-inertial frame of reference. You classify as non-inertial what me, Swanson, bdgwx and Tim Folkerts would classify as inertial.
As long as the coordinate system axes are pointing at fixed stars, the placement of the origin does not matter. It is still an inertial reference frame.
DREMPTY,
The location of the origin doesn’t matter as long as it’s not accelerating.
So you can’t put it on Earth, the Moon, or any other place that is accelerating.
This is what you said before, and it’s still wrong.
“You can use any location you like for the origin of your inertial reference frame, Swanson.
You can put it anywhere you want, as long as that spot is not accelerating.
You can use the position of three distant stars to locate your origin, if you insist that there has to be an origin for an inertial reference frame.
But then the origin could also be moving, just as long as it’s not accelerating.
"So you can’t put it on Earth, the Moon, or any other place that is accelerating."
…and yet, Swanson said: "…the Center of Mass of the Earth, which is the proper location to be used for the origin of the inertial reference frame”.
He indicated that you can put the origin of an inertial reference frame through the CoM of a celestial body. According to you, that would make it a non-inertial frame of reference. You two directly disagree with each other.
Now, please have the integrity to debate over your differences.
pups, if you are going to quote me, don’t take it our of context. I wrote:
This was in response to your dumbass comments about Mt. Everest rotating around “it’s own axis”. I also wrote:
Stupid pups never wants to discuss the real physics, only troll.
You disagree with bob, you pathetic troll. Argue it out with him, not me.
You stated that the origin of an inertial reference frame can go through the CoM of a celestial body. bob disagrees.
Airhead pups still can’t grasp my comment that for purposes of analysis of a body’s rotation, the origin may be placed at the CoM of that body. Place coordinates at the Moon’s CoM with the three axes fixed in the stars and one will find that the Moon rotates in that coordinate system. It’s just that said coordinate system is of no use in analyzing the translation motion(s) of the CoM, since gravity accelerates both the Moon and the Earth.
“Airhead pups still can’t grasp my comment that for purposes of analysis of a body’s rotation, the origin may be placed at the CoM of that body.”
Get it through your thick skull, Swanson…bob is the one who disagrees with you!
"Place coordinates at the Moon’s CoM with the three axes fixed in the stars and one will find that the Moon rotates in that coordinate system."
You call that an inertial reference frame. bob calls it a non-inertial reference frame. You two disagree, moron.
…and no, it appears to rotate on its own axis, in that coordinate system. Just like Mt. Everest appears to rotate on its own axis, if you place coordinates at Mt. Everest’s CoM with the three axes fixed in the stars.
pups fails again. I did not claim that placing a coordinate system fixed in the stars at the Moon’s CoM would be an inertial reference frame. In fact, I pointed out that it wasn’t.
Place another coordinate system pointed to the same locations in the stars at the Sum’s CoM. That system would be much closer to being an inertial reference frame, though the Sun is moving around the Milky Way galaxy. The three axes of that coordinate system would be parallel to those for the one placed at the Moon’s CoM and the rotational vectors for the Moon would be parallel and exhibit the same magnitude in both systems as well. As anybody with half a brain understands, the obvious fact is that the Moon rotates wrt the Sun. As a result, it’s also obvious that the Moon rotates once an orbit.
Swanson, you are now simply lying. I am done talking to you.
Proof that Swanson is a liar, for those that need it:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-954793
pups has no answer based on physics, accuses me of lying and writes:
Is that a threat or a promise from all of you???
“…displays a complete misunderstanding of inertial reference frames, which are coordinate systems which do not exhibit acceleration or rotation. While not necessary, such coordinates might have the origin placed at the CoM of the Earth or the Moon. When measured against any inertial reference frame, the Moon clearly rotates once an orbit.”
Those are Swanson’s words.
pups again refuses to address the physics of rotating bodies. And, pups in it’s reply reveals that it’s own previous promise not to respond was a lie.
Notice that Swanson cannot tell the difference between someone talking to him and someone talking about him.
This discussion was simply about what classifies as an inertial reference frame. Swanson stated a while ago that an inertial reference frame could have its origin placed at the CoM of a celestial body. bob disagrees. Swanson will not argue with bob about it, though…even going to the extent of lying by saying “I did not claim that placing a coordinate system fixed in the stars at the Moon’s CoM would be an inertial reference frame. In fact, I pointed out that it wasn’t.”
Swanson is a proven liar.
pups continues to refuse to address the physics of rotating bodies, fixating instead on my previous statement with a minor problem. The Moon rotates once an orbit.
Proven liar Swanson barges into a discussion, doesn’t pay any attention to what the discussion is actually about, and then lies about his own position in order to avoid a confrontation with bob. Then he demands that I change the subject of the discussion to "address the physics of rotating bodies", as if I have not already refuted his point about the inertial reference frame with the Mt. Everest example.
Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis. I get the impression Swanson agrees unconditionally with that statement. Yet, from the inertial reference frame, you could falsely conclude that it is rotating on its own axis, because it would be "changing direction" wrt the fixed stars, as it rotates about the Earth’s axis. It’s as simple as that.
Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis wrt to Earth. Though at times making progress, DREMT still hasn’t mastered relativity in comments.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
I’ve never trolled.
#2
Ball4, please stop trolling.
pups insists that placing an inertial reference frame on Mt. Everest would prove that Mt. Everest is rotating. Actually, what that would prove is that the Earth, including Mt. Everest, is rotating. That rotation would be around an axis thru the CoM of the Earth, not around some axis located at Mt. Everest.
"pups insists that placing an inertial reference frame on Mt. Everest would prove that Mt. Everest is rotating"
No. It would appear to be rotating on its own axis wrt that reference frame. In reality, Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis.
"Actually, what that would prove is that the Earth, including Mt. Everest, is rotating. That rotation would be around an axis thru the CoM of the Earth, not around some axis located at Mt. Everest."
Indeed. Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis. But using the inertial reference frame, you can be led to the erroneous conclusion that it is rotating on its own axis. That is the whole point. Using the inertial reference frame can lead you to false conclusions wrt discerning axes of rotation.
“Using the inertial reference frame can lead you to false conclusions wrt discerning axes of rotation.”
No. The inertial frame is the frame that must be used to accurately assess the acceleration of any object. Our moon appears to have no rotation on its own axis wrt to earth but in the inertial frame the correct rotational acceleration is assessed of once per earthen orbit. That’s why they call the frame inertial.
So this is what Ball4 is saying wrt. Mt. Everest:
"No. The inertial frame is the frame that must be used to accurately assess the acceleration of any object. [Mt. Everest] appears to have no rotation on its own axis wrt to earth but in the inertial frame the correct rotational acceleration is assessed of once per earthen orbit. That’s why they call the frame inertial."
So according to Ball4, the "correct rotational acceleration" of Mt. Everest is assessed to be "once per earthen orbit". In other words, Ball4 is writing that it is correct to say that Mt. Everest is rotating on its own axis.
This is when rational people should understand that using the inertial reference frame can lead you to false conclusions wrt discerning axes of rotation.
Use my words DREMT, not yours. In other words, Ball4 is writing that it is correct to say that Mt. Everest is rotating on its own axis wrt to inertial frame. Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis wrt to Earth.
DREMT has yet to master relativity.
"In other words, Ball4 is writing that it is correct to say that Mt. Everest is rotating on its own axis wrt to inertial frame"
This might surprise Swanson. It ought to.
“Rectilinear translation is loosely defined as all particles in a body moving along straight, parallel lines at the same velocity”
It is applied to straight lines only and cannot be applied to a curved one. Otherwise it wouldn’t be Rectilinear translation.
willard…”The amount of centripetal force needed to balance an objects inertia and keep it in a circular path of radius r is found from Newtons second law: the centripetal force = m v2 / r, where v and m are the objects speed and mass, respectively”.
***
That would be f = mv^2/r, I guess the exponential got lost.
I agree with this equation, however, some write it as a = mv^2/r and I claim that is wrong. It’s an error based on using kinematics without considering the physical reality of the motion. As physicist David Bohm once claimed, an equation with no physical reality to back it is garbage.
Here’s the claimed derivation. If f = mv^2.r and f = ma, then ma = mv^2.r
the m’s cancel and we are left with a = mv^2/r.
What we have here is an equation with purely kinematic values and no force. It is presumed to apply in all contexts but it doesn’t.
Let’s try to apply it. If you have a mass, like the ball on the string, turning in a perfect circle, and the ball completes 10 revolution/rotation in a second, then the ball is rotating with a CONSTANT velocity of 10 revolutions/second. The ‘a’ above applies to the centripetal acceleration along the string from the ball to the person’s hand holding the string.
That acceleration is claimed based on the observation that a velocity vector at 3 o’clock, when observed at a later displacement, say 11 o’clock, has changed direction. When the two vectors are placed nose to tail, a third vector is needed to close the triangle. It is being claimed that the closing vector is delta v, a change in velocity, which is nonsense in this context.
The velocity has not changed its scalar value since the velocity is constant. The change in velocity direction is being based on the change in direction alone and I think that is bs.
Another point, a ball moving in a perfect circle is not changing its displacement in the direction of the sting therefore there is no acceleration of the ball along the string. In that case, mv^2/r = 0, which makes no sense whatsoever whereas mv^2/r = f does make sense.
This is an abuse of Newton II. I pointed out earlier than f = ma applies only when the force can move the mass in the direction of the force. In this case, there is no displacement of the ball in the direction of the force. The string applies a tension to prevent the ball flying off along a tangential line, but there is no displacement along the string.
This is the danger of applying kinematics blindly. It is obvious that ‘a’ cannot possibly equal mv^2/r, since a = dv/dt = an instantaneous CHANGE of velocity wrt time. The statement mv^2/r has only constants, meaning nothing is changing in that statement wrt acceleration. It is ludicrous to claim an acceleration with a constant velocity that is not changing.
They are getting away with this nonsense in physics lectures because no one is challenging it. It was the same kind of blind reasoning using kinematics that got Einstein into trouble. He gave the time in acceleration properties it does not have.
When a gravitational centripetal force is applied to a mass, it can be claimed the mass will be accelerated toward the Earth at 9.8 m/s^2. We take far too much license with that fact, however. We tend to claim that the acceleration on our bodies causes our weight, however, it is the gravitational force causing our weight.
The force wants to pull us toward the centre of the Earth and the surface offers an equal force in the opposite direction. Therefore, our bodies are in static equilibrium.
When we stand on the Earth’s surface, we are not being accelerated, and here’s why.
a = dv/dt
v = ds/dt…where s = displacement.
There is zero displacement, unless we step off a cliff, therefore ds/dt = 0 and dv/dt = 0
That means a = 0.
another typo…
“If f = mv^2.r and f = ma, then ma = mv^2.r”.
Should read…
“If f = mv^2/r and f = ma, then ma = mv^2/r”.
“If f = mv^2.r and f = ma, then ma = mv^2.r
the ms cancel and we are left with a = mv^2/r”
If the ‘m’s cancel then it is a = v^2/r.
Excuse the typo
ma = mv^2.r turns into a = v^2.r if you cancel the ‘m’s.
Or
If f = mv^2/r and f = ma, then ma = mv^2/r turns into a = v^2/r if you cancel the m’s.
Moon does not travel a circular path around the earth.
Moon transits around the sun and its orbit is bent by earth so that sometimes it leads earth and sometimes it follows earth. Its never going backwards as a circular orbit would require.
Any formulation would require F=G(m1m2/r^2) for sun as m1 and earth/moon as m2 as a starting point. Complex problem of orbital mechanics.
Ken, you’ve been misled by the graphic you found, but you can’t understand. You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about, and can’t learn. A thoughtful person could easily disprove your graphic, but there is no thinking in your cult.
I predict you will present this nonsense again, as nothing will pull you away from your false beliefs.
This one you mean?
https://i.stack.imgur.com/bqSh9.gif
or
https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/2012/12/earthmoonpath.jpeg
from
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/266426/what-does-the-moons-orbit-around-the-sun-look-like
RLH Exactly.
Once you get the trajectory figured out the only reasonable way to visualize the moon continually facing earth is that the moon is rotating around its axis.
I would like to see the math behind that first gif. The math would prove all the moon’s peculiarities being discussed here.
Ken, an oscillating motion can be graphed as sinusoidal. Have you ever taken advance math?
But the resulting graph is not representative of all the physics involved.
If you understand basic sine waves, draw a straight horizontal line down the middle of a piece of paper. Now draw a sine wave, referenced to the straight line, so that one cycle is complete within your straight line. Make the amplitude as large as you can without leaving the sheet of paper, for clarity.
Next, move a pointer along the sine wave so that it always points to the straight line.
(For the braindead, the pointer is Moon, the straight line is Earth’s orbit, and the sine wave is Moon’s orbit.)
What happens when the pointer crosses the straight line (one half the sine wave cycle). The pointer would have to make an instantaneous 180 degree flip! Moon doesn’t do that.
Please don’t keep commenting with such nonsense if you don’t understand and can’t learn. Unless you want to prove you’re braindead.
Clint R,
Your analogy is short a couple variables, but then no self respecting scientist uses analogies to do science.
But then you are an amateur denialist, not even denialist junior space cadet grade.
You’ve got nothing of value again, braindead bob.
Says the dude that use analogies to do science.
That and Mr. Jackson will buy you a cheeseburger.
And again, nothing of value.
“And again, nothing of value”
in everything that you say.
Clint R,
And your analogies have scientific value?????????????
Not really, they only appear to have scientific value to people who haven’t taken enough physics classes.
> I guess the exponential got lost
C’mon, Gordo.
Anybody who knows about Roy’s parser knows it.
Don’t be facetious. Think.
Since you posed for Rodin we know you have no trouble doing that.
You mean Camille, Pozzo.
> The “particles” of a MGR horse do NOT have the same velocity, so this is NOT an example of rectilinear translation.
That should be enough to refute any point our Moon Dragon cranks think they have. It’s not that hard to think it true.
No wonder Pup keeps trolling with more than 13% of the comments.
Dud, you can’t even get your trolling correct.
This U, Pup:
Alarmist views from someone who I thought would know better. There is no evidence that Carbon Dioxide emissions are having any effect on climate other than greening the planet. The theoretical science says perhaps as much as 1.5C if we double CO2 from 400 to 800 ppm, a process that will take two centuries. The salient data does not support the notion of a climate crisis.
There are a lot of scientists who are showing the climate is driven by cyclical natural process like solar activity and ocean currents. They are warning of imminent cooling similar to that experienced during the Maunder minimum. Cooling would be a much worse scenario than any warming scenario could ever be.
The only reasonable reaction to climate change, whatever the cause, is adaptation if and when climate actually changes.
Ken at 2:19 PM
“There are a lot of scientists who are showing the climate is driven by cyclical natural process like solar activity and ocean currents. They are warning of imminent cooling similar to that experienced during the Maunder minimum. Cooling would be a much worse scenario than any warming scenario could ever be.
Citations please.
I probly could cite more people than Kennui:
https://contrarianmatrix.wordpress.com/lots-of-theories/
and I have hundreds more cites.
Still under 1% of the science community.
Here is title to the last time it got cold.
The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History 1300-1850 Paperback – Illustrated, Nov. 26 2019 by Brian Fagan
https://www.amazon.ca/Little-Ice-Age-Climate-1300-1850/dp/1541618599/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=The+little+ice+age&qid=1636586243&s=books&sr=1-1
Here is title to the last time it got cold.
The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History 1300-1850 Paperback – Illustrated, Nov. 26 2019 by Brian Fagan
ISBN-10 : 1541618599
ISBN-13 : 978-1541618596
‘The New Little Ice Age Has Started’ Habibullo Abdussamatov
Natural climate cycles of past centuries and millennia; are there implications for the next century and millennium? Carl Otto Weiss etal
‘Modern Grand Solar Minimum will lead to terrestrial cooling’ Valentina Zharkova
‘Geologic Evidence of Recurring Climate Cycles and Their Implications for the Cause of Global Climate ChangesThe Past is the Key to the Future’ Don Easterbrook
maguff…”Citations please”.
***
Try Tsonis 2007…
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2007GL030288
C’mon, Gordo.
“A different state of a warmer climate” isn’t the Sun. It could mean anything.
Read better.
Gordon Robertson at 7:38 PM
“Try Tsonis 2007…”
I’ve read Tsonis [and Swanson] 2007 as well as Swanson’s follow-up comment:
Also, Tsonis 2020 where he sounds not much different than Carl Sagan in 1985
Hi TM.
I see you’re practicing your keyboard skills again. They’ve taught you “block quote”.
Too bad “science” isn’t taught in keyboard school, huh?
Well, with the issue settled that the moon does not rotate on its own axis, let’s get back to that 33 K number that’s definitely wrong…
…with the issue long settled that the moon does not rotate on its own axis wrt Earth…
Yes, that issue is also settled. The moon does not rotate on its own axis, and the moon does not rotate on its own axis wrt Earth. The moon appears to rotate on its own axis wrt the inertial reference frame, but appearances can be deceptive.
So, with that all settled, let’s get back to that 33 K number that’s definitely wrong…
Braindead4 still owes us his “255K surface”.
For some reason it’s hard for him to find…..
Clint R still hasn’t found the obvious earthen 255K surface despite being shown the measured data multiple times. Figures, since Clint R is just here for entertainment purposes.
You still can’t find it Braindead4.
Keep looking.
Clint R
Be for real, you don’t care at all about evidence. Don’t pretend you do.
I will provide you the data but you won’t understand it. Ball4 is so much smarter than you I am amazed he blesses your ignorance with some knowledge.
Here is the data
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2012JD017997
Look at Figure 1. It has CERES data on global outgoing Longwave IR which comes to around 240 W/m^2. This gives a brightness temperature of around 255 K.
You are too stupid to understand any of this and waste most people’s time with stupid comments and mindless opinions on topics that are hopelessly above your limited thinking ability.
Best of luck in trying to understand real facts, science and logic. Things beyond the small mind you possess.
The Earth’s brightness temperature is 255 K. The surface average temperature is measured at 288 K this leaves a GHE of 33 K which is based upon real world measured values. You are too stupid to grasp this but you will say something stupid, that is certain.
Braindead Norman, you don’t have a “255K surface”. All you have is computer modeling from CERES.
If you had a REAL 255K surface, you could identify it’s altitude.
Your cult actually believes ice cubes can boil water.
See why you’re braindead cult idiot?
Clint R
I knew you would only respond with a stupid post. Sad but true.
It is a radiating surface. It is not the solid ground of the Earth.
It has already been explained to you. It is the total energy emitted by the Earth as seen from space. Some of it comes from the actual surface through the atmospheric window, some from warmer clouds some from water vapor and some from cold CO2 in the colder regions of the atmosphere. The radiant energy is around 240 W/m^2 the brightness temperature would then be 255 K. That is the temperature of Earth as seen from space.
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/instruments/
The satellites are taking actual measurements.
But braindead Norman, your cult hero promised “…a surface where 255K is instrumentally measured…”
Since he got caught, he’s been constantly trying to evade. Maybe that’s why you adore him so much. You believe he can deceive so well. You’re trying to learn how to deceive better, since you get caught so often.
Neither one of you can identify that 255K surface.
Clint R
It is a radiating surface not a solid one. I have explained it to you and it is not deceptive. You cannot understand the concept.
Rather than going on a false accusation it might help if you understand the concept or at least try. The total sum of the radiating surface from Earth to Space is around 240 W/m^2 which is measured by satellites. This gives Earth a brightness temperature of 255 K.
“This gives Earth a brightness temperature of 255 K.”
Great, so Earth is the temperature it is calculated to be. No 33 K GHE.
DREMT now comments Te – Te = 0. At least DREMT can do trivial math.
Norman, if you’re now admitting there is no real surface, what is the altitude of of your “emitting” surface?
No, Ball4, I comment that the calculated effective temperature of Earth is equal to the measured brightness temperature of Earth. Explain again why that calculated temperature should instead be compared with the measured surface temperature, when there is nothing in the calculations to specify the surface?
Yes DREMT gets it and can do trivial arithmetic: calculated Te – measured Te = 0
That calculated effective temperature should instead NOT be compared with the measured surface temperature, that measured effective temperature should instead be compared with the measured surface temperature.
Tse – Te = 288K – 255K = 33K GHE, as measured and also text book calculated with measured input data from 1LOT energy balance over time.
The 255K surface data source has already been provided to Clint R. Ask him.
NB: Mars Tse – Ts = 215K – 210K = 5K GHE, clear not dusty atm.
"that measured effective temperature should instead be compared with the measured surface temperature."
Why? What does that prove?
Proves the earthen GHE is measured at about 33K.
How does it prove that, Ball4? It’s just the temperature of the surface compared to the brightness temperature of the Earth.
It’s just the brightness temperature of the surface compared to the brightness temperature of the Earth.
Tse – Te = 288K – 255K = 33K GHE
No explanation from Ball4 will be forthcoming, then. As usual.
Braindead4, your “brightness temperature” is calculated from an imaginary sphere.
That ain’t science, it’s ANTI-science.
No imaginary sphere is used Clint & it’s measured data.
I’ve pointed Clint R to the 255K surface data source that is measured from the real earthen system sphere surface – it’s just Clint R isn’t well informed enough to understand the science.
So, the limited vocabulary of Clint R is used to call commenters names instead of doing science. Typical for an entertainer not a scientist.
Where’s that “real 255K surface” then Braindead4?
Right where its always been since it was measured Clint R; you just need to read up and find it after all the helpful clues I’ve given you.
The Moon does indeed rotate on its axis, once per orbit of the Earth. As all people other than a tiny, tiny clique agree.
RLH, what’s your “best proof” of your belief?
(Links to your cult don’t qualify.)
Clint R,
Proofs are for Mathematics and Whiskeys, not Science.
But if you had some science training, maybe passed a physics course or two, you would know that.
But you don’t.
There is plenty of evidence the Moon rotates,
For one, at full Moon the face of the Moon faces the Sun, then at new Moon about two weeks later, the Moon faces 180 degrees away from the Sun.
In order to change the direction the Moon is facing by 180 degrees it must have rotated.
I’ll await your childish non-scientific response.
The “proofs” came from Braindead-idon’s claim that such “proofs” were provided by his sci-fi heroes form centuries past.
But your “best evidence” fails, as lunar day/night is due to Moon’s orbit.
Sorry, but you now must go to the back of the line.
Pup, Pup,
First you said that science was about SCIENCE, now you’re confusing proof with EVIDENCE. Adducing evidence until we get the best explanation around is how scientists roll. So again you have no idea what you’re talking about.
Heck, you don’t even know how to troll. It’s not for a lack of trying. You’re at 142 comments now, and so far you said NOTHING remotely relevant.
Dud, I’m flattered by your stalking me. There are probably many more enjoyable things you could be doing with your life. So I’m impressed that you are tracking my every comment.
Dear Pup,
If you stop commenting for three months, I promise I’ll stop responding to your comments for at least three months.
Whaddya say?
Yes, stalk me as much as you can, Dud. It shows your fascination with me. Being constantly stalked by an incompetent, braindead cult idiot only adds to my credibility, not that I need any more credibility….
Clint R: You are not credible to anyone except those in your tiny, tiny, cult.
Clint R,
You dimwit
“But your best evidence fails, as lunar day/night is due to Moons orbit.”
I wasn’t referring to the lunar day night cycle, I was pointing out which way the Moon’s face points, it continuously changes the direction it points because it is rotating on its axis.
In the future, try to respond to what I actually say, not what you think I say.
Sorry braindead bob, but Moon’s change in direction is caused by the resultant of vectors acting on it. It’s called “orbiting”.
It’s the same basic motion as a ball-on-a-string.
> Moon’s change in direction
Why are you always giving Kiddo’s game away, Pup?
Here’s my hypothesis: you read NOTHING.
Had you read Kiddo’s handouts and definitions, you’d know not to say “change in direction,” for that implies a rotation.
You really should coordinate your trolling with him.
“it continuously changes the direction it points because it is rotating on its axis.”
False. It continuously changes the direction it points because it is rotating about an external axis and not rotating about an internal axis. Just like a ball on a string. It is “orbital motion without axial rotation”. Clint R is correct.
… wrt to the string.
Dude,
Long ago you said revolving and rotating were different and now you are back to mashing them together.
Willard won’t have no Offspring quotes around here.
I am keeping them separated. "Revolution/orbit" is a rotation about an external axis, "axial rotation" is a rotation about an internal axis. The ball on a string is only "orbiting", and not "rotating on its own internal axis".
…again, wrt to the string. DREMT hasn’t yet mastered relativity but is gaining on it.
Bob,
How about “But keeping things clean doesn’t change anything” by Wilco?
As the Son of Lobster once said, Kiddo needs to clean up his own room. Using “orbit” and “spin” would save him characters, and it would help Pup follow along his argument.
Ball4 simply does not understand rotation, and never will.
DREMPTY,
This is true, and notice I am not quoting you.
“I am keeping them separated. “Revolution/orbit” is a rotation about an external axis, “axial rotation” is a rotation about an internal axis. The ball on a string is “orbiting”, and “rotating on its own internal axis”.”
but not what you said, which was wrong.
Willard,
Wilco is cool, DREMPTY should listen.
Better use of his time than being constantly wrong.
bob still doesn’t understand that "rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis" is motion as per the "moon on the left", and not the "moon on the right". He won’t listen to me, he won’t listen to my stalker, he won’t listen to Tim Folkerts, he won’t listen to anybody.
DREMPTY,
I do listen to you, you are just full of shit, that’s all.
And wrong.
The Moon is rotating about it own internal axis as well as orbiting the Earth.
Now we start laughing at you.
Ah, but then by "orbiting" (or "orbital motion without axial rotation") you have to mean motion as per the "moon on the right".
Yeah, if you want to continue to use shitty phrases you made up.
bob loses yet another one.
“whats your best proof of your belief?”
What is your proof that the belief is wrong? Making up science does not qualify.
My understanding is one that satisfies all observed behavior. Yours doesn’t.
Your problem is you don’t have “one”, RLH.
Your problem is you’re a braindead cult idiot.
rlh…”The Moon does indeed rotate on its axis, once per orbit of the Earth. As all people other than a tiny, tiny clique agree”.
***
Breathlessly awaiting your proof, Richard. An appeal to authority is not accepted as a proof, even though alarmist climate science is based entirely on that.
You do not accept all the proofs that have been offered. You are just as deluded as the others who support your position.
” Well, with the issue settled that the moon does not rotate on its own axis… ”
This is valid for a few stubborn and incompetent denialists only, who put their self-centered narrative way above the work done since centuries.
I can live with that: there are even people claiming Earth is flat.
Braindead-idon, are you going to stick with your sci-fi writers from centuries ago?
I guess that makes sense, because you have no knowledge of science.
Results so far:
bob’s best evidence — Lunar day/night — FAIL
Braindead-idon’ best “proof” — Astrologers from centuries ago. — FAIL
Clint R,
Claims my best evidence was Lunar day/night
No it was not
You can’t even understand the simple things I post.
My best evidence is that the Moon points one way at full Moon and then points 180 degrees away at the next new Moon.
Points one way, then points 180 degrees away, without rotating on its axis.
Sorry dude, that’s impossible.
… and in addition never stop distorting, misrepresenting, discrediting, denigrating and lying, like in
” Astrologers from centuries ago. ”
What a disgusting liar this Clint R in reality is, you perfectly see.
Thanks, Bin.
I don’t really need any further accreditation, but slurs from braindead cult idiots is always appreciated.
“slurs from braindead cult idiots” such as yourself are ignored.
Thanks, RLH.
I dont really need any further accreditation, but slurs from braindead cult idiots are always appreciated.
Further accreditation that you are a braindead cult idiot are always easy to add.
There’s at least one thing that has now been established.
Our Dragon cranks are not one-trick ponys.
They’re two steppers.
From the Moon to the Sky, from the Sky to the Moon.
Rinse and repeat, for a third year now.
We need better Dragon cranks.
willard…”Our Dragon cranks are not one-trick ponys”.
***
Still confused, are you?. Dragon Slayers are the skeptics, the Dragons being the fraudulent claim of anthropogenic warming. Supporters of the Dragon theory are the alarmists.
C’mon, Gordo.
You slayed absolutely nothing.
That makes you a Dragon Crank.
Sometimes you’re a Sky Dragon crank.
Other times you’re a Moon Dragon crank.
You’re also an AIDS crank, but that’s just you.
sorry…posted this in the wrong place.
tim…”In three dimensions, the angular momentum for a point particle is a pseudovector r p, the cross product of the particles position vector r (relative to some origin) and its momentum vector”
***
Note the reference to pseudo-vector in the z-direction. Also, the reference to ‘point particle’.
These guys and many others don’t understand the physical reality of the cross-product. It makes no sense physically unless applied to phenomena like an electrical conductor moving in a magnetic field. Or, a fluid turning in circles as a whirlpool. I think a tornado or a hurricane would apply as well.
In that case, you have a conductor carrying an electrical current moving perpendicular to a magnetic field. Say the magnetic field flows from the north pole of a magnet to the south pole, and the current carrying conductor is between the poles. If you form your right-hand so the thumb and forefinger are at right angles, and the middle finger extend perpendicular to the plane of both, you have the right-hand rule.
If you point the forefinger in the direction of the magnetic field and the thumb in the direction of the electrical current, the middle finger will point in the direction the conductor is moved. That is a basic principle in electric motors, explaining how the armature in moved by a current flowing in its coils. With a generator, the left-hand rule is applied in the same way.
The point is, there are actual motions going on in this problem and the cross-product can be applied. We have already agreed somewhat that the Earth has only linear momentum. I am claiming that the cross-product applied to the rotational plane of the Earth around the Sun makes no sense.
I think university profs get so caught up in the theory that many fail to grasp the physical reality. Applying the cross-product to the Earth’s motion around the Sun makes no sense to me since there is no motion perpendicular to that plane as required by the cross-product. In fact, Wiki calls it a pseudo-vector, meaning there is nothing there. .
Momentum is obviously mv and with the Earth, it is along a tangential line at any instant. There is never a momentum along the orbital curve as there would be if the Earth was attached by a rigid arm to the Sun.
In other words, angular momentum requires a physical, rigid attachment between a mass and an axis.
“Applying the cross-product to the Earths motion around the Sun makes no sense to me since there is no motion perpendicular to that plane as required by the cross-product. “
First, motion is not required. There can be a large torque = r x F applied to a wrench without any motion.
Second, there must be a vector (or at least a component) perpendicular to another vector, not perpendicular to a plane.
For Angular momentum, the motion vector must be perpendicular to the position vector — not perpendicular to the plane.
L = r x mv
Draw a line from the sun to the earth. That is “r”
Draw a vector in the direction of motion. That is “v”
As long the two are not parallel (ie the planet is not headed straight toward the sun or straight away from the sun), there will be a non-zero cross product and a non-zero angular momentum.
“In fact, Wiki calls it a pseudo-vector, meaning there is nothing there. .”
Again, no. The term “pseudovector” has a technical meaning related to how the vector behaves when you look at a mirror image of the situation. Torque is a pseudovector. Magnetic field is a pseudovector. Don’t let the name fool you — pseudovectors are just as ‘real’ as true vectors.
“In other words, angular momentum requires a physical, rigid attachment between a mass and an axis.”
No. Angular momentum, L = r x p, requires an axis, a position vector measured from that axis (r), and a momentum vector (p). There is no requirement beyond this. In particular, no physical, rigid attachment.
Sorry Folkerts, but you’ve got your physics confused, again. It’s just like with your perverted calculations that result in 4 ice cubes being able to boil water.
A non-rotating, orbiting body has NO angular momentum.
I don’t know where all this confusion about angular momentum got started. I’ve even seen idiots claim that Earth can transfer angular momentum to Moon! If Earth were to completely stop spinning, Moon wouldn’t even know.
There’s so much nonsense out there.
“A non-rotating, orbiting body has NO angular momentum” about its own axis, true.
As the Moon rotates on its axis (as does the Earth) it has an angular momentum to account for that fact.
There’s so much nonsense out there, and RLH keeps adding to it.
Clint R: You are the one adding nonsense. Not me.
“A non-rotating, orbiting body has NO angular momentum.”
I wonder, dear readers, who is more likely to be right here?
A physicist (Tim) who quotes an actual physics equation, or a troll (Clint) who regularly is caught making up his own fizuks?
And then there is the easy fact check to verify the equation is correct.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/amom.html
What say you readers?
ken…”I would like to see the math behind that first gif. The math would prove all the moons peculiarities being discussed here”.
***
I gave you the mathematics behind polar coordinates and the slope of the tangent line as the first derivative of a circle. If you want the actual math of the calculus, I can supply that too but there’s no need when the visual will do.
However, for a circle of radius 1 located at x = 0, y = 0…..
x^2 + y^2 = r^2 = 1^2 = 1
Taking the first derivative wrt to x..
2x dx/dx + 2y dy/dx = 0 …since the derivative of a constant = 0 also, dx/dx = 1.
therefore…
2x + 2y dy/dx = 0
2y dy/dx = -2x
dy/dx = -2x/2y = -x/y
This tells you the slope of the tangent line at any point x,y on the circle = -x/y
Knowing all that, it is easier to just draw the tangent line perpendicular to the radius to determine how the circumference is changing at that point.
Note…at each point on a circle there is a tangent line perpendicular to the radius that defines the rate of change of any circle at that point.
We can also use the tangent line to define the circle at any point. That’s exactly what I have done in my proof. I even slowed the left gif down by extracting each frame so I could see where the radial like would go, hence the tangent line.
If you extract all the frames in the gif (use the free app Irfanview/Options/Extract All Frames), I think there are 60 frames, you can see three mountain-like shapes on the near side of the gif Moon. The radius goes between the second lowest peak and the smallest peak.
If you examine each frame you can plainly see there is no rotation about the Moon’s axis.
However, to further the proof mathematically, we have the radial line (meaning radius line) and we extend it through the Moon’s COG and the far face. Where it intercepts the near face, you draw a tangent line and that represents an inner orbital circle. Do the same for the COG and get the actual orbital circle. Then do the same for the far side and get an outer concentric orbital circle.
Note that all three tangent lines are moving in parallel. You need no further proof since those three points always moving in parallel cannot ever rotate around the COG.
This is translation without rotation.
ps. also note that the orientation of the tangent line changes through 360 degrees due solely to translation. The near face of the Moon is a tangential plane equivalent to the drawn tangent line.
It is the illusion created by that tangential plane at the near face changing with the orbit that gives the illusion of rotation about a local axis.
ps. there’s a midterm exam coming up soon so you spinners had better learn all this or you get the big ‘F’. Willard gets a dunce cap to go with his ‘F’ since he’ll never get this.
C’mon, Gordo.
You’re the dunce here.
You keep repeating your point refuted a thousand times.
Points A and B can face each other on a circle while both circles spin. All you need is to synchronize the spins and the orbits. It’s really not that complex.
As Frank Black once said, let go of your ego.
willard…”Points A and B can face each other on a circle while both circles spin. All you need is to synchronize the spins and the orbits. Its really not that complex”.
***
Rather than shooting of your big mouth, why don’t you prove it. I just did….that it is not possible to do what you claim.
Saying something is so, and proving it is so, are two different things.
Show me the math that proves your point. But, first, state the problem correctly. This is not about points A and B on two rotating circles, it’s about one circle always keeping point A pointed at the surface of the other while it orbits the circle.
Go on, prove it.
C’mon, Gordo.
You proved very little.
In fact all you proved was that points facing one another were facing one another. Everything else under the hood was for your implicit implication that points facing one another can’t belong to a shape with a spin.
In other words, you simply begged the question.
Here’s a simple refutation of your claim even you should be able to get:
https://postimg.cc/xks4d3Nh
The force that propels the Moon in its orbit does not come from Earth, you know.
Unfortunately, Gordon, this all falls apart for an ellipse, where
x^2/a^2 + y^2/b^2 = 1
Then
dy/dx = – (b^2/a^2) x/y
The slopes is NOT perpendicular to the radial line now.
tim…”The slopes is NOT perpendicular to the radial line now”.
***
Not to a radial line from the Earth centre to the Moon, which is not really a radial line in an ellipse. The radial line for the Moon must be derived by finding the radius of a circle whose circumference arc corresponds to the arc in the elliptical curve. When that is found, a line perpendicular to it at the Moon’s centre is a tangent line to the curve.
You find that radial line for the Moon by drawing lines from each focal point to the Moon’s centre. Then you bisect the angle formed. The first thing you notice is that the radial line no longer points toward the Earth’s centre, but slightly askew of it.
That is the source of libration. Are you listening, Binny? Because the Moon’s radial line no longer points to Earth’s centre, as it would in a circular orbit, we can now see partially around the longitudinal edge of the Moon.
Gordon, hat seems like an awful lot of of ad hoc work to get the wrong libration. Your solution seems to keep one point on the moon aligned with the angle bisector (and one point aimed straight ahead along the direction of orbit. This does create some libration, but not the libraion observed for the actual moon.
Why not just let the moon rotate at the same rate on its own axis throughout the orbit and get the right libration?
tim…”Why not just let the moon rotate at the same rate on its own axis throughout the orbit and get the right libration?”
***
If it does that, by the half-orbit point, the side that always faces the Earth will be pointing away from it. There would be no need for libration since we’d be able to see the entire surface of the Moon.
Remember, we on Earth rotate 27+ times per Moon orbit. If the Moon was rotating about its axis, we would see every part of the Moon’s surface.
I gave you the math to prove it cannot rotate because the far side is always moving parallel to the near-face.
Again, take two coins and try to rotate one around the other while keeping a mark on the surface of the moving coin always pointed at the stationary coin’s centre. It’s not possible.
The mark on the moving coin must rotate 360 degrees about its centre. Not possible if you keep the mark pointed at the stationary coin centre.
Tim, you don’t need a curved surface to see this. Take a coin, put a mark on it and place the coin on edge between your fingers on a flat surface. The only way the coin can rotate about its centre is for the mark to rotate 360 degrees about its centre.
In order to keep the mark always on the surface, you need to slide the coin. Sliding is translation without rotation.
> There would be no need for libration
C’mon, Gordo.
Libration is not a need. It’s a fact. You can’t abstract it away. You can only try to find a model that can account for it.
It’s as if you never tried to explain anything in your life. I mean, even cooking takes some reasoning skill.
Gordon, consider this image: https://ibb.co/jfzjjNB
(The eccentricity is exaggerated compared to the real moon, but this could be a real moon somewhere and your theory has to work for large and small eccentricity.)
At perigee (point A), some point on the moon is pointing straight toward the earth, labeled with the arrow. As this moon orbits, which direction will that arrow point? As I understand your position, you say the arrow will always be perpendicular to the direction of travel. So at point D it would be the middle of the three arrows, about 110 degrees from the original direction.
This is wrong. The correct orientation is “straight up”, 90 degrees from the original direction. Point D is 1/4 of the total time for one orbit, and the moon will have changed orientation by 1/4 of a turn = 360/4 = 90 degrees.
Moon orbit around earth is not a circle.
Get that through your noggin and we’re more than halfway there.
Until you get there you are wrong; equations that apply to motion around a circle do not apply.
ken…”Moon orbit around earth is not a circle.
Get that through your noggin and were more than halfway there”.
***
Red-herring alert!!!
Ken…your comment is almost too stupid to warrant a reply. We are talking about the left-hand gif which has a circular orbit. You asked for the math on the left-hand gif.
However, I have also given the math for an elliptical orbit. Based on your acerbic replies to me, I must presume you are too stupid to understand the circular math, never mind the elliptical math. You would rather sling insults and ad homs than discuss the physics.
Why do you waste your time with stupid defensive posturing when you could be learning some real math and physics?
Gordon, You should look at the gif again. The moon is not depicted in a circular orbit; it passes inside then outside the circle describing earth orbit around the sun.
Yeah, it might look like the moon circles the earth, but that is only an apparent illusion.
ken…”Gordon, You should look at the gif again. The moon is not depicted in a circular orbit; it passes inside then outside the circle describing earth orbit around the sun”.
***
Which gif are you talking about? This is the gif referenced on this blog as left and right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking#/media/File:Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
Get yourself an orange an apple and a grape to represent Sun Earth and Moon.
Draw a circle on a piece of paper with orange at center. Then move the earth around the circle. Then trace a path for the grape so that the grape is in all four major phases of the moon. Then figure out how the moon always has the same aspect facing earth. The only circle you will draw is the earth going around the sun.
ken…”it might look like the moon circles the earth, but that is only an apparent illusion”.
***
Are you saying the Moon’s orbit around the Earth in 27+ days is just an illusion?
ken…”Then trace a path for the grape so that the grape is in all four major phases of the moon. Then figure out how the moon always has the same aspect facing earth”.
***
The only thing explaining that that situation is the Moon orbiting the Earth WITHOUT rotation.
When the Moon is between the Earth and the Sun, we can’t see the side facing us because it is dark. As the Moon is in the orbit to either side of that point, sunlight reflects off the inside edges of the Moon giving crescent Moons. When the near-face is opposite the Earth, we get a full Moon.
Note that the face which the sunlight reflects off, that we can see, is the same face always facing the Earth. The so-called dark side, which we never see, is fully lit when the Moon is between the Earth and the Sun. It’s dark only when the Moon is on the opposite side of the Earth from the Sun.
Go back to the point where the Moon is between the Earth and the Sun. Draw a radial line from Earth’s centre through the darkened near face and out the other side (presuming a circular orbit for simplicity). Now draw three tangent lines perpendicular to the radial line at the near face, the COG, and the far face (facing the Sun). Those three tangent lines must always move parallel to each other in order that the near-face always faces the Earth.
If the tangent lines are always moving in parallel, it is not possible for the Moon to rotate since that would mean the tangent lines were constantly changing the angle required for rotation about the Moon’s centre.
The tangent lines would have to rotate 360 degrees about the Moon’s centre for rotation about it. As it stands they rotate through 360 degrees about the Earth’s axis. A major difference.
C’mon, Gordo. Think. It’s easy to argue by question.
Do you really believe that the Saros cycle is an illusion?
The tidal lock GIF won’t tell you if what you see is a rotation or a translation or a bit of both.
You know why?
Because tidal locking is a physical phenomenon, not a mere geometrical factoid.
And do you know what’s even funnier?
Even on the geometrical point you got not case:
https://postimg.cc/7Cf6cN89
willard…”The tidal lock GIF wont tell you if what you see is a rotation or a translation or a bit of both”.
***
Yes it will, you were not paying attention, as usual.
Download the free image viewer Irfanview. Load the gif and go to Options/Extract All Images. You’ll get about 60 jpeg images.
Examine each image, especially images 1, 15, 30, 45, and 60. You’ll see clearly that the side with the appearance of mountains always points to the Earth’s surface. With careful observation, you can even visualize a radial line going between the 2nd largest mountain image and the smaller mountain image to Earth’s centre. Then visualize three tangent lines perpendicular to that radial line at the near-side, COG, and far-side.
They are always parallel and never cross over as would be required for rotation about the COG.
I doubt if you can focus to that extent. You lack a scientific brain that can observe without an appeal to authority.
> Those three tangent lines must always move parallel to each other in order that the near-face always faces the Earth.
C’mon, Gordo. Think.
Three parallel tangent lines will always move parallel to each other if you apply the same transformation to each of them. This applies to every universe you can think of in which Euclid’s fifth axiom applies.
You’re inflating something quite simple: we always see the Man on the Moon. There’s nothing else behind what you call a “demonstration.” From this truism you can’t infer that the Moon doesn’t spin. That the Moon spins isn’t a geometrical fact. It’s a fact about physics.
But as a matter of geometrical fact, it is indeed possible to represent *any* transformation as the sum of rotations and translations. That’s called Chasles’ theorem. You haven’t disproved it.
It’s as if you have not been following Kiddo’s Master Argument at all.
‘Are you saying the Moon’s orbit around the Earth in 27+ days is just an illusion?’
Relative to earth the moon is orbiting the earth. Relative to Sun and Earth its not; the moons orbit is not circular; its an illusion. The moon orbit can’t be circular as earth is always moving in its own orbit around the sun.
Think of it as a three lane highway where the bad drivers do the speed limit in the center lane. A worse driver, one that can’t maintain a regular speed, passes your car on the left (full moon), goes into the center lane in front of you (third quarter), then goes into the right lane and slows down (new moon) and your car passes his. He then goes into the center lane behind you (first quarter) and finally passes again on the left.
Yeah, his car is orbiting yours. At no time is the orbit circular. At no time does his car go into reverse.
The only difference from moon and his car is his car always faces the direction of travel. That means the moon is rotating because it does not always face the direction of travel.
“That means the moon is rotating because it does not always face the direction of travel.”
WRONG Ken.
Moon faces its direction of travel. That’s why we always see the same side of it.
… proving our moon inertially rotates once on its own axis per earthen orbit.
Only if "orbital motion without axial rotation" is as per the "moon on the right".
Which it is, and which the caption say it is.
No, "orbital motion without axial rotation" is as per the "moon on the left".
… wrt to the central object.
Ball4, you’ll note that bob did not need to use any "wrts" when he stated that "orbital motion without axial rotation" was as per the "moon on the right". Even bob understands the "orbital motion without axial rotation" concept.
Bob is a son of an Astronomer, so Bob knows Astronomers don’t use the term orbital motion without rotation, so Bob knows some people make up shit.
It’s shit, and nothing you say about it will make it smell any different.
“Moon faces its direction of travel”
The Moon’s direction of travel is anti-clockwise as seen from the ‘North’. The Moon never travels ‘backwards’ in its orbit around the Sun as the Earth/Moon orbital velocity is much, much smaller than the Earth/Sun orbital velocity.
https://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/2012/12/earthmoonpath.jpeg
Sure bob, it’s shit. Shit that you understood precisely what was meant.
Braindead bob, clinging to astronomers that you may have known doesn’t mean you understand orbital motion.
You can’t even understand the simple ball-on-a-string!
You’re braindead.
How much is 165 times NOTHING, Pup?
“U” is the answer.
Orbital motion without axial rotation wrt the fixed stars is as per the moon on the right.
Axial rotation is not determined based on "wrt the fixed stars". Axial rotation must be kept separate from orbital motion.
Because DREMT hasn’t fully understood relativity yet – all motion is relative.
Our moon has no axial rotation on its own axis wrt Earth but our moon is spinning on its own axis inertially wrt to the sun once per earthen orbit. Relativity is hard and DREMT has yet to master the subject.
Reference frames do not settle the issue.
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
There’s not *one* thing that settles the issue.
Science is a *web* of beliefs.
#2
Reference frames do not settle the issue.
norman…” It has CERES data on global outgoing Longwave IR which comes to around 240 W/m^2. This gives a brightness temperature of around 255 K”.
***
I seriously doubt the accuracy of the Ceres instruments. The telemetry is nothing like the NOAA sat telemetry that measures microwave radiation from oxygen molecules. It appears to be an ad hoc system employing different theories.
For example, they use a tungsten filament for calibration. A tungsten filament has a temperature of around 2800C to 3200C. This translates roughly to an orange colour, which is beyond the IR spectrum. A tungsten lamp obviously gives off IR since the IR is noticeably converted to heat in our skin. However, what does that temperature range have in common with the Earth’s surface?
They also mention blackbody sources to confuse the matter.
The sensors on Ceres are obviously detecting IR frequencies and converting them to a temperature. I don’t think any radiometer has such a range, to accurately measure the intensity of radiation given off 500 kilometres below the instrument. Therefore, they must be using some kind of conversion factor based on S-B.
I don’t think S-B can be applied in that temperature range since it was derived initially in a range from about 700C to 1500C. The sigma proportionality constant applies only in that range.
ps. I am not arguing that Ceres cannot detect surface IR, only that it cannot possibly measure the intensity in W/m^2. That’s like using a radiometer on a car’s headlights 500 km away and telling you how many watts the headlights are emitting.
Gordon Robertson
If you had a sensitive enough radiometer that could detect the energy of a car headlight at 500 km you can calculate how many watts the headlight is emitting. All you need is the energy and the distance and some factors for energy loss from traveling through the air. In a vacuum all you need is the distance and a detection of energy since no atmospheric losses, then you can calculate the watts.
CERES is measuring energy emitted by many layers of the Earth system, surface, clouds, upper atmosphere. A known amount of energy is measured and converted to watts/m^2.
norman…”All you need is the energy and the distance and some factors for energy loss from traveling through the air”.
***
You don’t have the energy, Norman, that’s what you are trying to calculate, given only the frequency of the emitted light.
Gordon Robertson
You do actually have the energy. It is a sample of energy received that produces a change in the sensor. The sensor is calibrated to be able to calculate how much energy (in watts/m^2) would be streaming to the sensor to create such a change. In some sensors they measure a temperature change from the top of a material (usually as close to a black-body as possible) which is caused by energy that is absorbed relative to a bottom part that is not in path of incoming energy. The temperature difference creates a potential that is converted to some flux using the S-B Law.
Norman, there is no 255K brightness temperature. Never was.
stephen p anderson
There is a 255 K brightness temperature. The definition of brightness temperature is the temperature a blackbody would have emitting at a given rate.
The Globally averaged (based upon measured values) for energy leaving the Earth and detected by satellites in space is around 240 W/m^2.
Not sure what evidence you provide to demonstrate this is not an actual true statement. I need more than your opinion here, what data do you present to reject this statement?
Speaking of data, Norman, where is your “real 255K surface”?
Clint R
“Speaking of data, Norman, where is your real 255K surface?”
It’s the Earth and its atmosphere.
Or the flux emanating from the top of the atmosphere, although all the flux does not originate from there.
Gordon Robertson
You have a good point here: “I dont think S-B can be applied in that temperature range since it was derived initially in a range from about 700C to 1500C. The sigma proportionality constant applies only in that range.”
The good point is that you don’t think. It is obvious that you are not a thinker. I have already discussed this with you. The Stefan-Boltzmann Law is applied at all temperatures. It has been tested under multiple conditions. You are wrong here and need to update your incorrect thinking. It applies to all temperatures.
Hot sun to liquid helium.
norman…”The Stefan-Boltzmann Law is applied at all temperatures. It has been tested under multiple conditions”.
***
Prove it. You have accepted results from people with no proof. They have simply applied the equation without understanding its derivation.
Gordon Robertson
Here is how you can end your posts about the validity of the S-B Law since you can accomplish the proof for yourself without trusting anyone but you.
If you have an IR thermometer that is all you need. Take the temperature of water with it. (Water emits IR close to a blackbody of 0.96). Now get a temperature of the water with a thermometer and see how they compare. The IR thermometer uses the S-B Law to calculate the temperature from the energy the sensor receives. I think you will find that they are fairly close match. If you find this then you can be certain that the S-B constant is good for room temperature systems. You could also use it on ice since that is also a good IR emitter. Then you can get a good range of the S-B equation for your own.
Do the test and let me know what you get. I am sure the S-B Law will apply at room temperature just as well as it does for a heated tungsten filament. You be the judge. End the speculation on your part and do some actual testing.
Gordon,
I think I have posted a link to the derivation of the Stephan-Boltzmann law for you before.
Think man,
It’s named after two people for a reason.
Experimental and Theoretical.
Norman, you must have missed your last cult meeting. One of your cult leaders has now negated the S/B Law. Folkerts now says that 315 W/m^2 from ice is different than 315 W/m^2 from Sun.
So, your “Hot sun to liquid helium”, is no longer valid within your cult.
You need to get up to speed. You know how much you adore Folkerts.
Gordon Robertson
You would accept no proof anyway. They test the Stefan-Boltzmann Law in physics labs. They have test equipment set up to test it.
Here is one example of calculating the Stefan-Boltzmann constant from experimental data (measured values).
I hope this helps you understand, this is only one of several experiments done on this.
http://www.jbgilmer.com/LabManual/LabReportsManualAppJEx4.pdf
There are others you can find on Internet. Labs do tests like this in physics classes.
Researchers have done tests over the years on multiple materials at multiple temperatures to conclude it is a Law. The results of all the testing are not on the Internet. If you looked at some journals on heat transfer physics I am sure you could find many examples.
If you want to reject science and the results of many studies that is your option. No person can perform the countless tests done to gather the information. Science is built on trust. If you don’t want to trust people then live that way. I have no reason to believe there is massive lying in the science world. There is some but the extent, I believe, is small. I think most give researchers give honest good data (at least in the world of physics and chemistry…not sure about he medical field it seems lots of studies are not that good and can’t be reproduced).
Your cult no longer accepts S/B.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-989668
Clint R
You are not actually portraying what Tim Folkerts is saying. I did go to the original point he was making.
He had a clear ice shell that was emitting the 315 Watt/^2 of its surface to some object at the central location. The thought experiment was taking place in a vacuum condition so no other heat transfer process is taking place.
Ice is emitting IR band of EMR spectrum. The Solar energy is mostly in the visible band.
The ice is warming the object to 273 K and maintaining this temperature for the central object (of course the ice would need a continuous input of energy to maintain this rate of emission).
The solar energy can go through the ice since clear ice is transparent at the frequency of visible light. This energy will add to the energy given off by the ice warming the object above what the ice is doing. The two fluxes are adding energy to the central object.
The distinction is that clear ice is transparent to visible light but not to IR bands. If you had another ice shell around the first, none of this energy would go through the ice to the central object. The only IR it would receive is from the inner ice shell all the outer shell IR would be absorbed by the surface of the inner shell ice.
Tim Folkerts is correct. Your distortion of his thought process only indicates you ane not intelligent enough to follow his logic and make fun of things he is not saying. Crazy thing to do but you do it anyway and often.
NICE spin, Norman.
But you forgot to mention your hero is adding 315 W/m^2 to 315 W/m^2, both are the same as flux from ice (273K).
And your braindead cult idiot comes up with 325K!
You might need some more spin….
Clint R
Yes it is a simple example of where fluxes add and increase the temperature. Not sure what you are attempting to point out that is wrong with Tim Folkerts post.
The reason ice cannot add to the object is because the energy from more ice can’t reach the object
This one might help you understand.
If you have one large sheet of cold space that is continuously warmed to 273 K and have a one square meter non-insulated near black body plate facing this sheet it will absorb 315 Watts of energy from the ice sheet. If it is fairly thin and highly conductive it will act like a surface with two sides so it absorbs a total of 315 watts and will then reach a steady state when it emits 157.5 Watts from each face. The steady state temperature will reach 229.6 K (or close to).
If you put another ice sheet on the opposite side so both faces receive 315 Watts the steady state temperature will now rise to 273 K. The two fluxes added their energy to the plate and increased the temperature accordingly. This is similar to Tim Folkerts example. Solar visible light can go through clear ice so both fluxes add at the surface and increase the object’s temperature. If you put both ice sheets on the same side, one behind the other, the IR emitted by one will not reach the plate so it can’t add the energy to the where it cannot reach.
You STILL need more spin, Norman.
You’ve got to get 315 W/m^2 to add to 315W/m^2 and result in 325K!
You’ve be spinning forever….
Clint R
Despite efforts to explain anything to you, your incredible stupid mind prevents any enlightenment. I don’t think you even know why you need to say such stupid things on a continuous basis. I think therapy may help. You could go and find out why you have a compulsion to be stupid on a continuous basis. It is amazing that you are so prolific with stupid comments. I think maybe on out of a hundred has a little thought in it. Most are just endless repetition of some insult or derogatory comment. Nothing much of intellect.
You can always tell when Norman goes into meltdown. He uses the word “stupid” in about every sentence. Just like an 8-year old.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Radiation from the Sun is different from radiation from ice, their spectra is different, even if the intensity (W/m^2) is the same.
See Norman, braindead bob stays up on the latest cult perversions of physics.
Clint R, DREMT, GR, etc. are all braindead cult idiots.
Clint R,
Nope Clint R, it has nothing to do with AGW, it’s basic spectroscopy, Freshman level college chemistry, something you have no understanding of.
It’s like passing light through something to see what’s there.
That might be what I do for a living.
That is, when I am not making antimatter.
But then who says I can’t do both at the same time?
tim…”Your solution seems to keep one point on the moon aligned with the angle bisector (and one point aimed straight ahead along the direction of orbit. This does create some libration, but not the libraion observed for the actual moon”.
***
The whole point of the exercise on an elliptical orbit is determine in which direction the near-face is pointing wrt Earth’s centre. With a circular orbit that’s a no-brainer, the near face always points directly at the Earth’s centre.
To find the direction in which the near-face is pointing in an elliptical orbit, we need to draw a radial line from the Moon centre through the tangential plane of the near face at right angles to it. Then the radial line will point straight out of the near-side face’s tangential plane.
If we represent the Moon as a circle on a plane, all we need is a tangent line at the surface where the radial line intercepts it. If we represent the Moon as a sphere, we need a tangential plane, which is self-explanatory.
This is equivalent on Earth to drawing a line from Earth’s centre through the Equator at the Greenwich meridian. That line points at the Sun only once every 24 hours. Why would the Moon be any different…if it did rotate?
In general, on any curve, we can find the radial line that represents a circle whose circumference coincides with an arc on the curve at any point. If we know the tangent line to the curve at that point, by taking the 1st derivative of the curves equation, that radial line will be perpendicular to the tangent line.
An interesting way of doing that in industry is found at the following link. Basically, you place a straight edge of known length across the curve and measure the ‘rise’ between the mid-point of the straight edge and the curve. The straight edge is a ‘chord’, or a line drawn across a curve or circle.
The radius of the circlee is:
radius = 1/2(rise^2 + 0.25[chord]^2)/rise
It gives an example for a rise of 23/32″ = 0.719″ and a chord length of 36″.
Rad = 1/2(0.719’^2 + 0.25 [36″)^2/0.719 …all in inches
rad = 225.7 inches.
So, a circle with radius 225.7 inches would overlap that curve over the 36′ chord length.
Try that on an ellipse drawn to scale and see if my bisector is accurate.
https://www.cmrp.com/blog/faq/how-to-check-the-radius-on-a-curved-segment.html
We don’t need to do that with the ellipse because bisecting the angle formed by lines from each focal point to the Moon’s centre gives us the same thing. The Moon’s centre is at the point where the radial line meets the ellipse at the Moon’s centre. Therefore, the part of the radial line from the Moon’s centre to the near face shows in which direction the near face is pointing.
Because it is not pointing at the Earth’s centre, we can see partially around the edge. There would be no libration required if the Moon was rotating about its axis. The near face would not point to the Earth’s centre except at one point on the orbit. At other points it would be pointed away from Earth’s centre over a range from 0 to 360 degrees.
tim…” Angular momentum, L = r x p, requires an axis, a position vector measured from that axis (r), and a momentum vector (p)…”
***
We have already determined that the p-vector is pointing always in a tangential direction, not along the curve. There is no momentum along the curve (orbit).
Angular momentum can only be there if something is propelling a mass along the curve, like a rigid arm. A mass will not follow a curved path unless forces are applied to it.
ps. and please don’t claim gravity is that force. Gravity is a force field which re-directs the linear momentum of the Moon, which is always trying to leave the orbit in a tangential direction. If the Moon collides with a mass it does so along a linear, tangential path, not along the curved orbital path.
At any one instant angular momentum and tangential momentum are exactly the same.
“We have already determined that the p-vector is pointing always in a tangential direction, not along the curve. There is no momentum along the curve (orbit).”
I don’t understand the distinction you are trying to make. The tangent is always ‘along the curve’ = ‘along the current direction of the orbit’. That is pretty much the definition of “tangent”.
The velocity vector is always ‘along the direction of the curve’. The momentum vector is always ‘along the direction of the curve’.
“Angular momentum can only be there if something is propelling a mass along the curve, like a rigid arm. “
No! You don’t need ‘something propelling a mass’ to have linear momentum, and you don’t need ‘something propelling a mass’ to have angular momentum. You just need some motion.
“A mass will not follow a curved path unless forces are applied to it.”
This is true … but beside the point. Following a curved path is not a prerequisite for having angular momentum.
Folkerts, you are confusing a “mathematical construct” with “reality”.
L=mrv ONLY where it applies. Just because you have m, r, and v, that does NOT mean there is angular momentum. If a jet passes over your head, you have m, r, and v, but there is NO angular momentum.
Yeah, there is angular momentum when a jet flies overhead. Pull out your old engineering textbooks.
There are conservation laws for angular momentum just like there are conservation laws for linear momentum. If a ball spinning on a string has angular momentum around your hand, then there must still be equal angular momentum if the string breaks and the rock flies off in a straight line. This is ‘reality’. This allows us to calculate how the real word behaves. Imagining the algular momentum disappears would be ‘fantasy’.
Folkerts, I wish I had time to go back and find all of your perversions of physics. But, I’m going to start a list, as you seem to be an endless source of such nonsense.
* Moon rotates about its axis.
* Ball-on-a-string is not a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
* Fluxes add
* Ice cubes can boil water
* A jet flying overhead has angular momentum.
Feel free to add to the list.
Clint R, DREMT, GR etc. are all braindead cult idiots.
I just remember another one:
* S/B Law no longer is valid.
We could turn this into a game. Figure out which concepts on Clint’s list …
a) are correct, but Clint thinks are incorrect.
b) are incorrect, but Clint thinks are correct.
ALL of the false beliefs listed are YOURS, Folkerts.
Let the spinning begin….
Clint R,
All five of these are true.
“* Moon rotates about its axis.
* Ball-on-a-string is not a model of orbital motion without axial rotation.
* Fluxes add
* Ice cubes can boil water
* A jet flying overhead has angular momentum.”
You are perverting physics by claiming they are wrong.
Even the Ice cubes can boil water one, just needs ice cubes moving at orbital speeds crashing into your Mohito, presto boiling Mohito.
You are a pervert.
b,b,b,b,b,b,b,b,b,b…..
The earth surface at 288K is radiating at 390W/M2 from a combination of solar irradiation and back radiation derived from that very solar irradiation. There is no new energy source, just a magnification of the earth surface temperature due to reusing its own radiation.
We know Earths average surface temperature is 288K.
So, there cannot be earth surface at 288K is radiating at 390W/M2.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Correct, Sun warms Earth, not the atmosphere.
So you are saying that before dawn and after sunset there is no heating to the planet?
Sun warms Earth 24-7.
So you are saying that before dawn and after sunset there is no heating to a given point on the planet?
(otherwise there would be no dawn or sunset – idiot).
Sun warms Earth 24/7.
A particular point on Earth sees a 24 hour cycle, through day and night. In the night part the Sun is not visible.
Clint R,
I remember the magnificent sunsets after the Mt Pinatubo eruption, caused by the Sun’s light being absorbed by the atmosphere.
As usual, you are out to lunch.
That’s a good example of Sun warming Earth, bob. Very good.
(Even a blind squirrel finds a nut occasionally.)
Clint R,
Nope, its the atmosphere nit wit.
“About 23 percent of incoming solar energy is absorbed in the atmosphere by water vapor, dust, and ozone, and 48 percent passes through the atmosphere and is absorbed by the surface.”
Just something I googled.
You are either confusing the Earth and its atmosphere or combining the two.
You’re a loser either way.
Exactly bob, Sun warms Earth 24-7.
Thanks for your support, “About 23 percent of incoming solar energy is absorbed in the atmosphere…”
Clint R, DREMT, GR etc. are all braindead cult idiots.
RLH,
right, and they are also fucking stupid, here is the latest from Clint R.
“Correct, Sun warms Earth, not the atmosphere.”
Thanks for your support, About 23 percent of incoming solar energy is absorbed in the atmosphere
Stupid is as stupid does.
Am I having a meltdown yet?
"Am I having a meltdown yet?"
Apparently so.
Clint R, DREMT, GR, etc. are all braindead cult idiots.
The method I use is the Planet Surface 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
Moon s Albedo a=0,11 Moon s Tmean = 220K
Mars Albedo a=0,25 Mars Tmean =210K
For the same Albedo, Moon and Mars will have the same average (mean) surface temperature.
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.
Why Moon s Tmean=220K is so close to Mars Tmean=210K ?
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
Christos Vournas at 7:43 AM
Your model makes you seem as if, as they say, you’ve lost the plot.
Earth is a planet, as all of them are.
Earth follows the same physics laws as every planet in universe.
Earth s atmosphere is very thin to have a significant greenhouse effect.
Way way smaller than +33C!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Only when you totally ignore earthen atm. IR opacity in calculations as you do Christos.
Measured earthen Tse – Te = 288K – 255K = 33K GHE
The “255K” is nonsense, Braindead4.
That is the calculated value from an imaginary sphere. Such a surface does not exist.
You will go running to CERES, or some such distraction. If you’re trying to change your story about a “real 255K surface”, then just say so. If you want to admit you’re talking about a layer in the atmosphere, when what is the altitude of that layer?
You have NOTHING except your false beliefs, bogus claims, and links you can’t understand.
There’s a real 255K surface from which the data is measured Clint, it’s not imaginary. CERES is not a distraction, it’s several precision instruments. If Clint knew what Clint R was writing about, the answer to:
“If you want to admit you’re talking about a layer in the atmosphere, when what is the altitude of that layer?”
is readily available for the midlatitude tropics from many thousands of sounding rocket thermometer readings and all compiled for Clint in the US Standard Atm. If Clint R weren’t such a specialist in entertainment & name calling but rather a specialist in atm. science, then Clint would be able to easily answer the question.
I’ll leave it up to Clint (or even Christos) to research since something this easy to find should only take a few minutes away from name calling and entertaining & will prove Clint R understands at least some basic atm. physics.
Why Moon s Tmean=220K is so close to Mars Tmean=210K ?
It is the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon which does the work.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Albedo, insolation, surface and atm. optics.
Rotation is fixed at current rates so is inherent in those data readings at both celestial objects.
Braindead4 falls flat on his face again.
All blah-blah, no “real 255K surface”.
Someone predicted he would respond this way….
Entertaining answer Clint R, devoid of science. Clint can’t even answer basic atm. science questions.
Clint remains still looking for the obvious earthen real measured 255K surface long published. That’s what libraries are for (and sometimes the internet) but Clint doesn’t know how to use these basic educational tools preferring to call names & entertain us instead.
Moon performs 1 rotation every 29,531 earth days (the lunar diurnal cycle period)
Mars performs 1 rotation every 24,622 hours or 0,9747 rot /day.
Consequently Mars rotates 29,531 *0,9747 = 28,783 times faster than Moon.
So Mars is irradiated 2,32 times weaker, but Mars rotates 28,783 times faster.
And… for the same albedo, Mars and Moon will have the same satellite measured mean surface temperatures.
Why Moon s Tmean=220K is so close to Mars Tmean=210K ?
Because there is the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon which does the work.
Like-wise it happens on Earth too.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos Vournas at 2:14 PM
At least we both agree that the Moon rotates once on its axis for every orbit around Earth.
All blah-blah, no “real 255K surface”, from Braindead4.
Just as predicted….
Right, just as predicted… Clint has no answer to atm. science basics. But do enjoy the name calling and devoid of science commentary from an uninformed Clint. Even Christos is ahead of Clint in understanding our moon inertially rotates on its own axis once per earthen orbit.
(Are you taking notes, Norman? Here’s your cult hero perverting reality. Notice his techniques and tactics. You’ll need this to advance in your cult.)
TYSON MCGUFFIN says:
November 11, 2021 at 2:20 PM
Christos Vournas at 2:14 PM
“At least we both agree that the Moon rotates once on its axis for every orbit around Earth.”
No, TYSON, what I meant is that Moon rotates in relation to sun. Moon performs 1 rotation every 29,531 earth days (the lunar diurnal cycle period).
In relation to fixed stars Moon rotates once every 27,3 days. It is different.
Moon is almost a perfect sphere. That is the main argument that Moon does not rotate on its axis.
From Wikipedia:
Moon
Equatorial radius 1738.1 km
(0.2725 of Earth’s)[4]
Polar radius 1736.0 km
(0.2731 of Earth’s)[4]
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas
Here are your own words.
1.
” Moon performs 1 rotation every 29,531 earth days (the lunar diurnal cycle period).
Mars performs 1 rotation every 24,622 hours or 0,9747 rot /day.
Consequently Mars rotates 29,531 *0,9747 = 28,783 times faster than Moon. ”
*
2.
” No, TYSON, what I meant is that Moon rotates in relation to sun. Moon performs 1 rotation every 29,531 earth days (the lunar diurnal cycle period).
In relation to fixed stars Moon rotates once every 27,3 days. It is different.
Moon is almost a perfect sphere. That is the main argument that Moon does not rotate on its axis. ”
*
Could you, according to your own words, exactly describe
– about which axis Moon “rotates in relation to sun”,
and
– why, due to being ‘almost a perfect sphere’, it therefore ‘does not rotate on its axis’ ?
I’m very interested!
Clint R
I think I understand what Ball4 is saying is the Earth’s surface at 255 K. Yes the atmosphere is not a solid surface but consider this image.
http://cdn.spacetelescope.org/archives/images/screen/heic2017a.jpg
This is an image of Jupiter. It is a gas planet yet it possesses a distinct boundary between the edge of its radiating surface and space. This is the surface I think Ball4 is indicating and it does have a brightness temperature of 255 K and it is derived from actual measured energy fluxes from satellites. It is not a made up or imaginary temperature. It is based upon real world measurements.
In the image of Jupiter you can’t really say where the light energy is coming from in the image. Some could be coming miles below other regions.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Vitali-Tatartchenko/publication/259531096/figure/fig2/AS:297086416375813@1447842329577/From-Hasler-et-al-2003-internet-site-Earth-image-at-the-infrared-wavelength-of-67-m.png
This one (if it posts properly) is an IR image of Earth from space. Some of the energy comes from the surface, other from other regions of the atmosphere but the totality of all the IR emitted by Earth is shown here as a radiating surface. This is the surface that would be at 255 K.
Does that clear it up for you?
No Norman, your endless rambling and links you don’t understand NEVER clear anything up.
Where’s your bogus “real 255K surface”?
Until you can answer that simple question succinctly and directly, you’ve got NOTHING.
Clint R
I can’t make you look at the links. The one with the Earth in IR as seen from satellite shows you what a radiating surface looks like. I am sorry your mind is not developed enough to be able to look at an image and understand what you see.
The image is the radiating surface of the Earth. It cannot be any clearer than that. This image will give you a brightness temperature of 255 K. I can’t make it any easier for you. You have to do a little thinking on your own.
Sorry you are so stupid. I am glad more posters are seeing how stupid you are. Again I wish you were not this stupid but your lack of intellect is something I can’t fix.
Ball4 is correct, you are wrong but you are also too stupid to understand what anyone says. This is a deep level of ignorance. Sorry again.
Poor braindead Norman can’t identify the “real 255K surface”, so his meltdown continues:
“Sorry you are so stupid. I am glad more posters are seeing how stupid you are. Again I wish you were not this stupid but your lack of intellect is something I cant fix.”
Norman’s meltdown reduces him to an 8-year-old in a tantrum.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Clint R
I guess I should you your preferred word of “idiot” or stupid with you.
I have identified a radiating surface. I cannot be blamed that you do not understand it.
https://www.google.com/search?q=surface+defintion&oq=surface+defintion&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i10i433j0i10l8.3632j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Read the definitions of surface. Then look at the IR image of the Earth. The radiating surface is what the satellite sees. There is no way to help you understand this. You can tell me I am in meltdown or whatever, but it won’t change that you can’t understand the concept of a radiating surface (it does not have to be solid) it is just the outer part of the radiating field.
Wrong, Norman. You have NOT identified a “real 255K surface”. You found things on the Internet that you don’t understand. You found IR photos of Jupiter and Earth, and a definition of “surface”. And, as usual, you have abused your keyboard relentlessly. That’s all just your typical braindead distractions.
You have NOT provided a “real 255K surface”. The reason is you can’t. You and Braindead4 bit off more than you can chew. You jumped out of that plane with no parachute.
Now you’re in meltdown because reality has smacked you in the face, again.
That’s why this is so much fun.
By “this” Clint R means trolling, calling commenters names instead of doing science. Clint R still can’t find the real earthen 255K surface despite all the clues provided by Norman et. al. Shows how uninformed is Clint.
Clint R, though, does provide great entertainment as the leading blog laughing stock.
Where’s your bogus “real 255K surface”?
Until you can answer that simple question succinctly and directly, you’ve got NOTHING.
Right, Clint R doesn’t know and can’t learn where it is on his own despite being given some clues that just about give the answer away. Clint is a science failure but great entertainment & fun to watch Clint admit doesn’t know even the basics.
You’ve got NOTHING, Braindead4.
Youve got NOTHING, Clint R.
Fact 1. Energy In = Energy Out = 239 Wm-2
Fact 2. IR radiated by Earth depends on Surface Temperature. (stephan boltzman constant multiply by absolute surface temperature to the 4th power) = 398Wm-2
Fact 3. The Greenhouse Effect is the difference between IR energy radiated by Earth Surface and Energy out. Currently 159 Wm-2
GHE = Surface Emissions – IR to space
GHE = Surface Emissions – Absorbed Solar
GHE = Surface Emissions – Sunlight averaged over the surface (1-albedo)
IF GHE increases then Surface Emissions must increase equally.
Earth with same albedo and no atmosphere at 255K radiates 239 Wm-2.
Earth currently has surface 289K and radiates 239 Wm-2 to space.
If you decrease direct thermal radiation to space by 3.7Wm-2 as a result of doubling the amount of CO2 then Radiative Forcing is 3.7Wm-2
Radiative Forcing is an increment to the GHE.
If surface temperature increase by 0.67C then surface radiates 3.7Wm-2
UN IPCC says doubling CO2 results in 3C warming. That would imply earth surface radiates 16.5Wm-2.
If earth radiates additional 16.5Wm-2 then other GHGs must absorb 12.8 Wm-2. UN IPCC models have inherent contradiction.
‘Follow the Science: The IPCC’s Backdoor Science Agenda’ 28 Oct 2021 Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buGvV_pqwT8
“Earth with same albedo and no atmosphere at 255K radiates 239 Wm-2.”
No. Earth with same albedo and 1bar nearly IR transparent atmosphere at surface 255K radiates 239 Wm-2 for nil GHE.
“The earth surface at 288K is radiating at 390W/M2 from a combination of solar irradiation and back radiation derived from that very solar irradiation. There is no new energy source, just a magnification of the earth surface temperature due to reusing its own radiation. ”
That’s a very good description of the effect of greenhouse gases.
That’s description of free energy amplifier
There’s no free energy Eben.
Sunlight is still free, Braindead4.
Of course, you don’t know what sunlight is, living in your basement as you do.
There’s no free energy Clint R.
Claiming you can heat yourself up by reusing your own radiation is like lifting yourself up by pulling on your boots,
or like this guy pushing the pick up track
https://i.4cdn.org/b/1636662649687.webm
Eben
If that was the actual claim of what GHE is you would be correct. However this is not what the GHE claims so your point is a Strawman argument.
GHE will not heat up anything but it will allow the solar input to maintain a higher surface temperature.
The GHG present in the atmosphere act to reduce the NET energy the surface loses. Without GHG the current surface would lose energy at the rate of 390 W/m^2 so it would have a considerable cooling rate when solar input was not on the surface. With GHG (and clouds) present the NET radiant energy loss is 50 W/m^2.
That’s a nice rendition of the AGW nonsense, Norman.
Will your cult give you a cookie?
Clint R
Be honest, you do not understand what I posted. It is nonsense to you because you do not understand it. You never will. Sorry for your lack of intellect. Reading textbooks might help but it does require a little work.
No Norman, I understand exactly your nonsense. That’s why I know it’s nonsense.
I also understand that you are a braindead cult idiot.
Great fun, but not a good analogy.
Think of a pool at the side of a stream. As the water flows past it causes a rotating eddy to form in the pool.
In global energy budget terms energy flow terms the solar insolation is the flow from upstream, the outward longwave radiation to space is the flow downstream and the back radiation is the flow in the eddy.
???
entropic…”In global energy budget terms energy flow terms the solar insolation is the flow from upstream, the outward longwave radiation to space is the flow downstream and the back radiation is the flow in the eddy”.
***
Is this an example of Irish logic? I’d call it blarney.
Or try here.
https://visualira.blogspot.com/2015/07/a-physical-analogy-for-visualizing.html
No energy is created or destroyed, but the the way it flows through the system generates back radiation.
Back radiation absorbed by the surface increases its temperature above that produced by sunlight alone; with a corresponding increase in temperature and radiation from the surface.
Sorry Ent, but your creating energy. Or, in more advanced terms, you’re claiming energy can organize itself. That’s the violation of 2nd Law.
entropic…”Back radiation absorbed by the surface increases its temperature above that produced by sunlight alone”;
***
Two points:
1)Radiation from a cooler source, such as the atmosphere, which gets cooler with increasing altitude, cannot be absorbed by a warmer surface. 2nd law.
2)The origin of the back-radiated energy, as claimed by alarmists, is the surface. Therefore IR is radiated from the surface, absorbed by so-called GHGs, then back-radiated to the surface to increase surface temperature.
Duh!!! perpetual motion.
We have already proved with the Moon rotation argument that spinners, who are all alarmists, cannot think clearly, and this is more evidence. Lacking an appeal to authority, spinners/alarmists are lost.
Gordon Robertson
YOU: “1)Radiation from a cooler source, such as the atmosphere, which gets cooler with increasing altitude, cannot be absorbed by a warmer surface. 2nd law.”
Other than just making up something and declaring it as a fact what is your source of information for this statement. It does go against All heat transfer physics so if you make an exceptional statement in violation of current physics you are required to come up with exceptional proof.
Again (I have linked you to this I believe more than once) all physics textbooks will say similar things.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/seclaw.html
This is real physics and not your made up fantasy version of it.
“It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.”
Read that again. Let it sink in, that is what the 2nd law is stating not what you twist it to believing it says. I have also linked you to Clausius own words on the topic. You are wrong here and declaring it does not make it any more correct.
Norman, you need to read it again: “Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.”
And again.
And again.
And again….
Clint R
Yes NET energy. Do you need a definition of what NET means?
Radiant energy from a cold object IS absorbed by a hotter object.
NET energy is does not transfer from a cold object to a hot one (NET energy is heat transfer in modern terminology)
You are too stupid to comprehend this. It is not complex but you have not got the thinking skills to put it together.
The radiant energy of the colder object will be absorbed by the hotter object if the hotter object can emit in the frequencies of the colder object. The hotter object will radiate MORE energy to the colder object than it receives from it. The NET energy of the hot object (What it is emitting and losing minus what it gains from the colder object) will transfer from hot to cold. This does NOT mean the hot object cannot absorb energy from the colder one. Physics is physics. Your opinions are stupid. That is the reality you do not understand.
From Clausius:
Ҥ 1. Object of the Investigation,
The principle assumed by the author as the ground of
the second main principle, viz. that heat cannot of itself, or
without compensation, pass from a colder to a hotter body,
corresponds to everyday experience in certain very simple
cases of the exchange of heat. To this class belongs the
conduction of heat, which always takes place in such a way
that heat passes from hotter bodies or parts of bodies to
colder bodies or parts of bodies. Again as regards the ordi-
nary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only
do hot bodies radiate to cold, but also cold bodies conversely
to hot ; nevertheless the general result of this simultaneous
double exchange of heat always consists, as is established by
experience, in an increase of the heat in the colder body
at the expense of the hotter.”
Norman, copying and pasting things you don’t understand is no better than linking to things you don’t understand.
You need to read it again: “Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.”
That’s why you can’t boil water with ice cubes. Read it 100 times, and if you still don’t understand it, read it 1000 times. 10,000 times.
It’s better than being a braindead cult idiot.
Clint R
Again trying to open that thick skull of yours. I am not sure if you just don’t know how to read or are can’t logically process what you try to read.
I make a clear point you do not understand. You totally do not understand what I stated (NET energy).
I clearly stated NET energy cannot transfer from a hot object to a cold. I went into detail to make sure it was clear to you.
Work is required to transfer NET energy from cold to hot. Yes. Work is not required to transfer energy from cold to hot.
That is why Roy Spencer’s experiment works. As I said you are not intelligent enough to discern differences. You can’t grasp the difference in the two statements.
Norman has NO understanding of thermodynamics, and brags about it: “I clearly stated NET energy cannot transfer from a hot object to a cold.”
Sorry Norman, but you have clearly discredited yourself, again. Net energy CAN transfer from hot to cold. It happens all the time.
Clint R
Dang! I messed up my post and had to be corrected by you! That is a bad day for me. I will have to reread my posts before submitting. I need the discipline to prevent this from happening in the future.
No Norman, it’s nearly every time you comment, someone has to correct you. You’re a braindead cult idiot that can’t face reality.
Y U NO 4CHAN EBOY
W
Is that your first language?
No, Pozzo.
Clint R
No you do not understand it and are not smart enough to begin to understand it. All you understand is your own opinions.
You don’t no what is nonsense or valid. You are too stupid to discern the difference. You continue on an endless quest to post stupid opinions. I suggested you seek therapy to determine why you feel this is a valuable pursuit.
Norman’s meltdown has got him so frazzled he can’t even place his comments correctly!
Richard,
No, GHE would be back radiation from the atmosphere to the surface. That is not what he’s describing. That would defy the LOT.
richard w..”There is no new energy source, just a magnification of the earth surface temperature due to reusing its own radiation”.
***
That’s called perpetual motion, and it’s a contravention of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Heat can NEVER be transferred, by its own means, from a colder region to a warmer region.
What you are inferring is that water can run uphill, by its own means, or that a boulder can raise itself onto a cliff, by its own means.
Gordon,
“Thats called perpetual motion,”
No it’s not, it’s not perpetual motion when you have a perpetual energy source. Well, for billions of years, whatever.
It’s the Sun that is perpetually driving your non perpetual motion machine.
The Sun’s hotter than everything in the Solar system. So, the energy only flows away from the Sun, to the planets and is then deflected, reflected, or emitted into colder space.
No stephen, moonlight directed at the sun is an EM energy flow reflected & emitted back toward the sun.
Clint R, DREMT, GR etc. are all braindead cult idiots.
rlh…”Clint R, DREMT, GR etc. are all braindead cult idiots”.
***
Said by someone claiming to have a Masters degree but who cannot understand simple physics and math logic. Rather, RLH, follow an appeal to authority.
What a gutless wimp.
Just because you are an idiot, doesn’t make me one also.
I was trained in both science and logic to MSc level. You do not have a grasp of either of them apparently.
> follow an appeal to authority.
C’mon, Gordo.
Here’s what an appeal to authority looks like:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-973937
See?
Not all appeals to authority are invalid, BTW.
Think before you type.
willard…”For another, Linus Pauling used Schrodingers 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…”
***
You have no idea what appeal to authority means. It is blindly quoting an authority without being able to explain how the authority figure arrived at his/her conclusions. When I quote Pauling, I understand well what he meant when speaking about covalent bonds and electron orbitals.
On the other hand, you blindly quote sources like NOAA and NASA GISS, expecting us to accept their word as proof based solely on their names. That is major butt-kissing, not science.
On the Moon issue, you butt-kiss NASA without being able to explain their stance.
C’mon, Gordo.
You have no idea what’s an appeal to authority.
Try this:
https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1036&context=crrarpub
Type less, think more.
ken…”Fact 1. Energy In = Energy Out = 239 Wm-2
Fact 2. IR radiated by Earth depends on Surface Temperature. (stephan boltzman constant multiply by absolute surface temperature to the 4th power) = 398Wm-2
Fact 3. The Greenhouse Effect is the difference between IR energy radiated by Earth Surface and Energy out. Currently 159 Wm-2″
***
Please try to refrain from automatically replying with hostility. I am on your side basically on the climate alarm issues but I urge you to be far more skeptical about what you accept as a fact.
The source for your facts is a physicist but he is confused about certain facts. He begins his lecture by claiming heat in = heat out. When I heard that, I became suspicious about his understanding of thermodynamics.
Heat does not flow from the Sun to the Earth nor does it flow from the Earth to space. We can talk about heat gain and heat loss AT THE SURFACE, but not wrt the atmosphere (TOA). When we talk abut heat gain/heat loss, we are referring to the conditions at the surface when the incoming energy (EM) is converted to heat, and when the heat is converted back to IR.
Heat cannot be transferred through space and the molecules in the atmosphere are so far apart that the transfer of heat through atmospheric gases is essentially zero.
I am trying to emphasize that the good professor is overly simplifying the facts to the point of the ridiculous. There is little value in what he is claiming.
The movement of heat through the atmosphere is by conduction and convection. I did not watch his entire presentation but I saw no reference to the importance of those two forms of heat transfer, which are critical to understanding why the Earth is hotter with an atmosphere than without one.
The idea of energy in = energy out is far too simplistic.
The professor is committing a cardinal sin of confusing electromagnetic energy with heat. He also referred to ‘heat watts’ and there is no such thing. Heat is measured in calories. However, the scientists Joule discovered a relationship between heat in calories and mechanical work.
The professor seemed unaware of the difference between heat and the mechanical energy equivalent of heat. Had he been aware of that fact, he would not have rushed to present EM in watts/m^2.
You need to get this fact. Energy cannot be measured, only the effect it has on a mass can be measured. Therefore, EM has no measure and the w/m^2 is a reference to the heat it can produce in a mass IF IT IS ABSORBED. EM has no heat, therefore it is incorrect to measure it in w/m^2.
When we talk about the heating effect of thermal energy, we are talking about its effect on water. When we say heat is measured in calories, it means the unmeasurable heat is rated according to how much it agitates water molecules to the extent the temperature of 1cc of water rises by 1C.
We are measuring the kinetic energy of water molecules caused by the invisible and unmeasurable quantity of heat. We have to call that energy heat because it is the only form of energy related to individual atoms and molecules. If there are not atoms, there can be no heat.
Heat and all forms of energy are invisible to us, we have no idea what energy is, all we can see is the effect it has on a mass. This is important because we talk far too simplistically about energy and that leads to major misunderstandings like the greenhouse effect.
This is admittedly small potatoes but a physicist would not normally make such errors. However, in lectures, especially to freshmen, they must dumb the science down so the latter can absorb it. Some professors only teach 1st year students and that’s often the extent of the professors knowledge on a subject. The rest of the time they are busy in their labs with unrelated, more complex matters.
He also made an error when he claimed the radiometer pointed at a person’s head to measure the skin temperature used the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. He even asked us to trust him on that. He lied. The radiometer uses an internal algorithm created in a lab that equates a frequency to a temperature. The radiometer is based on an effect measured in a lab, not on S-B.
When he claimed S-B can be used to measure surface radiation, he lied, albbeit unintentionally. The sigma proportionality constant does not apply at terrestrial temperatures. It applies only at a temperature range between about 500C and 1500C. Scientist familiar with S-B know this and they also know that sigma must be adjusted for different temperature ranges.
When Stefan established the T^4 relationship between a surface temperature and radiation intensity, he based it on data from Tyndall’s experiment, where an electrically-heated platinum filament gave off different colours IN THE VISIBLE SPECTRUM, as the current and temperature increased in step. It was the different colours that enabled them to establish the probable frequencies of the EM and to establish the T^4 relationship.
It has been presumed that the T^4 relationship and the sigma constant apply across the temperature ranges, but why should they? Look at the response curve of Planck’s EM spectrum and you see a Bell-shaped curve. Why should terrestrial surface emissions, found off the end of the Bell-shaped curve, in a near linear region, have the same T^4 relationship?
I have seen no studies done at terrestrial temperatures to establish S-B at terrestrial temperatures. In fact, Gerlich and Tscheuschner, both with experience in thermodynamics, disproved it. There is no doubt a relationship exists between terrestrial EM emission wrt temperature, but I have never seen it published.
There is something missing from your Fact 1. Energy in = energy out does not explain the ‘energy retained’. It is the energy retained that causes the effect improperly called the greenhouse effect. Therefore there is a significant time delay between energy in and energy out.
As for your fact 3, there is no proof that a greenhouse effect exists never mind measuring it. Again, the professor applied S-B theoretically to an Earth without oceans or an atmosphere. There is no way that a T^4 relationship exists under such conditions.
The GHE effect has been measured Gordon; if GHE effect can be measured, then the effect is real.
rlh…”A particular point on Earth sees a 24 hour cycle, through day and night. In the night part the Sun is not visible”.
***
Which proves a rotating planet cannot keep the same face pointed at the Sun.
Draw a radial line from Earth’s centre that intercepts the surface at the Equator, where it meets the Greenwich meridian. At noon, that line points directly at the Sun, but only at noon. for the rest of the day it is rotating away from the Sun.
Draw a similar radial line on the Moon. It is always pointed at the Earth. If it rotated, it would have to rotate through the same 360 degrees as the radial line on Earth.
Come on, Richard, dust off your thinking cap and put it on.
“Draw a similar radial line on the Moon. It is always pointed at the Earth”
It is ROUGHLY pointed at the Earth, but not at the same identical point on the Earth. Come on, Gordon, dust off your thinking cap and put it on.
Which proves a rotating planet cannot keep the same face pointed at the Sun if it is not rotating once on its own axis per orbit which you have proved with your coin example.
False, Ball4.
See Gordon’s physical rotating and orbiting coin proof as to why you get this relative motion wrong DREMT.
False, Ball4.
norman…”It is important to note that when it is stated that energy will not spontaneously flow from a cold object to a hot object, that statement is referring to net transfer of energy. Energy can transfer from the cold object to the hot object either by transfer of energetic particles or electromagnetic radiation, but the net transfer will be from the hot object to the cold object in any spontaneous process. Work is required to transfer net energy to the hot object.”
***
This is absolute hors.e.b.l.eep, a total contravention of what Clausius said in his treatise on the mechanical equivalent of heat. Clausius said specifically, that radiation must obey the 2nd law.
There is no such thing as ‘net energy’. We are talking about heat, and any ‘net’ must be a summation of heat quantities, not a convenient mix of EM and heat.
It is b.s. that heat can be transferred cold to hot by energetic particles and the reason is simple and based on quantum theory. Where do the energetic particles come from?
Photons or not particles, a reference to particles means real particles with mass, like electrons. There is no way to transfer a less energetic electron from a colder mass to a hotter mass.
typo…”Photons or not particles,” should be “Photons are not particles,”
A hotter body contains the more energetic particles because it has a higher level of heat (kinetic energy). It is not possible for higher energy particles, that could be absorbed by a hotter body at a higher state of energy, to exist in a colder body.
Once again, an electron emits EM when it falls from one or more higher energy orbital levels to one or more lower levels. In doing that, the electron loses kinetic energy and emits that energy at a frequency corresponding to the angular frequency of the electron at its higher energy state. The magnitude of the emitted EM is the difference in potential between the energy states through which the electron fell.
To reverse that process through absor.p-tion, the EM must have the equivalent frequency of the higher energy level through which the electron must move AND it requires enough magnitude to elevate the electron. That kind of EM energy is not available in a colder mass.
Once again, you are talking about water flowing uphill by its own mean or a boulder raising itself onto a cliff by its own means. In other words, you are talking pseudo-science.
Gordon,
Review your Bohr model, it doesn’t say what you think it says.
“Once again, an electron emits EM when it falls from one or more higher energy orbital levels to one or more lower levels. In doing that, the electron loses kinetic energy and emits that energy at a frequency corresponding to the angular frequency of the electron at its higher energy state.”
Actually the frequency of the emitted electron corresponds to the energy difference between higher and the lower levels of the orbitals that the electron transitions from.
Check your Bohr model
> Draw a similar radial line on the Moon. It is always pointed at the Earth. If it rotated, it would have to rotate through the same 360 degrees as the radial line on Earth.
C’mon, Gordo. Think for a second. OK, maybe a minute:
Say the Moon is represented by a circle, its center moves from A to B, and point C always faces the Earth. You can move that circle with your finger in many ways, which range from one single translation to an infinity of translations and rotations. Now, get this: from a geometrical view, all these possibilities are equivalent. Your silly “proof” excluded none of them.
Now, the question becomes: which way abides by the laws of physics as we know them? This is a very big problem for Moon Dragon cranks like you. In fact, this is so big a problem that every time Tim mentions angular momentum you balk.
Less is more. That’s typing for you.
willard…”Say the Moon is represented by a circle, its center moves from A to B, and point C always faces the Earth. You can move that circle with your finger in many ways, which range from one single translation to an infinity of translations and rotations”
***
Not while keeping the radial line pointed to the Earth. With that restriction, only translation is possible.
That’s obvious. If the near side is always pointed at the Earth, the far side must always be pointed away from the Earth. Thus, they are moving in parallel. With rotation, by half-orbit, the near side and the far side must change position, with the far-face now the near-face.
That’s the way it is with Earth, which rotates about its axis. Why would it be different with the Moon?
If you mark the movable coin, that mark must rotate 360 degrees about the movable coin’s centre, for rotation. Not possible if it is required to always point to the stationary coin’s centre.
Good thing you did not try to become an engineer Willard. You lack the ability to objectively analyze, that lack of ability being a common trait of spinners/alarmists.
See https://ibb.co/R9hKY0S
Yes, that settles that Ken has it wrong.
That settles that the Moon is NOT pointing in the direction of its travel around the Sun.
Obviously. Why would it? How would it?
So why are there different rules for the Moon and the Erath wrt the object they are orbiting?
There aren’t. God you’re confused.
Kiddo hasn’t been following Gordo’s “demonstration,” yet he’s responding to it!
Fun! Fun! Fun!
> Not while keeping the radial line pointed to the Earth.
Cmon, Gordon. That is gibberish. Next you are going to state that the trigonometric identities on the unit circle do not exist.
If two descriptions can apply to the same situation, you cannot say that one is impossible, you know.
norman…”Again as regards the ordi-
nary radiation of heat, it is of course well known that not only
do hot bodies radiate to cold, but also cold bodies conversely
to hot ; nevertheless the general result of this simultaneous
double exchange of heat always consists, as is established by
experience, in an increase of the heat in the colder body
at the expense of the hotter.”
***
I explained this to you but you don’t seem to understand. In the days of Clausius, and even later, scientists believed that EM was heat. They thought heat flowed through the ‘aether’ as heat rays.
The electron was not discovered till well after the death of Clausius and the relationship between the electron and EM was not theorized till 1913, when Bohr produced his theory relating the two.
I would imagine that Clausius, and even Stefan and Boltzmann, were fooled into thinking a two way transfer of heat was possible by radiation. However, near the end of one of his books on the mechanical theory of heat, Clausius claimed that radiation must obey the 2nd law.
From the 1879 edition, p.92 of 390 (actual page 78)…
“This simultaneous passage of heat in the opposite direction, or this special change entailing an opposite passage of heat, is then to be treated as a compensation for the passage of heat from the colder to the warmer body; and if we apply this conception we may replace the words” of itself” by “without compensation,”and then enunciate the principle as follows: ” A passage of heat from a colder to a hotter body cannot take place without compensation.”
It is clear that compensation means applying external power and devices like compressors. If you read further, he talks about heat being converted to work in the case where it moves from cold to hot, and that is the principle used in ref.r.ig.e.rators and air conditioners. In fact, carry on to page 95 and see the heat engine diagrams that are the basis of his theories.
In an air conditioner, compensation involves compressing a low pressure/low temperature gas to a high temperature, high pressure liquid, then allowing the HP liquid to dissipate heat in a radiator to a higher temperature area. Then the cooler HP liquid is allowed to expand back to a low temperature/low pressure gas. The LP gas extracts heat from a room and the process repeats. Ergo, heat is moved from a lower temperature room to a higher temperature area.
If you read through Chapter XII, it becomes plain that scientists of the day did not distinguish between heat and EM, mainly because they knew nothing about atomic structure and its relation to EM.
Gordon Robertson
Your body has lower entropy, a higher energy concentration and a higher temperature than your environment.
By your rules energy cannot flow from your environment into your body and the energy stored in your body can only have got there by LOT violation.
You do not exist.
What does not exist Ent, is your knowledge of thermodynamics.
And for some reason, I suspect you can’t learn….
Tek’s Law.
To understand science requires considerable education; to have an opinion on science requires no education at all.
I understand science. You have opinions.
Well Ent, it sounds like you would like to impress us with your vast “understanding”
Question 1: Can you boil water using only ice cubes?
Yes
No
Question 2: Do passenger jets fly backwards when circumnavigating Earth?
Yes
No
Question 3: Is a ball-on-a-string a valid model of orbital motion?
Yes
No
(Braindead cult idiots get to have the correct answer first, to be fair. Do you need the correct answer before you respond?)
Ent bails.
I guess he didn’t trust his opinions….
Clint R demonstrates he is an idiot.
Interesting tidbit in the LaNina forecasting , The Japan forecasting just changed the LaNina forecast retroactively from 70%to 90% for the past two month. Where have you ever seen such forcasting ? The agency Bindiclown keeps praising as the best is the worst joke.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
Is your preference for JAXA because you can prove that they are a better authority than BOM or NASA?
Or is your preference because JAXA comes closer to your opinion?
Ken 9:11 AM
Think of it as a three lane highway where the bad drivers do the speed limit in the center lane. A worse driver, one that can’t maintain a regular speed, passes your car on the left (full moon), goes into the center lane in front of you (third quarter), then goes into the right lane and slows down (new moon) and your car passes his. He then goes into the center lane behind you (first quarter) and finally passes again on the left.
Yeah, his car is orbiting yours. At no time is the orbit circular. At no time does his car go into reverse.
The only difference from moon and his car is his car always faces the direction of travel. That means the moon is rotating because it does not always face the direction of travel.
Best picture seen.
Where did you find that article?
It’s in a book called Atlas of the Moon by Antonin Rukl.
https://issuu.com/elen85/docs/atlas-of-the-moon-antonin-rukl-sky-
Thanks
Nicely shows that the Moon is NOT pointing in the direction of its travel around the Sun.
Yes, that should clear up Ken’s confusion.
We would hope their confusion gets cleared up DREMT, but I suspect not.
They appear to still be in the mold of finding something to support their false beliefs, and then going with it.
Ken’s “orbiting car” would have to be accelerating and braking to go around the other car. Also, there’s nothing in their “model” to represent gravity. That’s not orbital motion. So, they’re still confusing kinematics with orbital motion.
The ball-on-a-string is the best model for orbital motion.
No it isn’t. A ball-on-a-string is only a model for a ball-on-a-string.
Ken was happily and correctly rolling along as a "Non-Spinner", when all of a sudden he seemed to get himself completely confused by the diagram of the moon’s trajectory around the Sun, as if this somehow proved axial rotation of the moon! I bet even some of his fellow "Spinners" were confused by this transformation, but they kept quiet, as they tend to do, never arguing amongst themselves, as we know.
The moon is orbiting the Earth whilst the Earth orbits around the Sun. I have absolutely no idea how this is confusing to anybody, or why they think it proves the moon rotates on its own axis in any way, shape or form. You can clearly see in the diagram that the moon is still moving around the Earth, it is just that the Earth is moving around the Sun at the same time. The diagram clears up any confusion that you could possibly have.
Will Ken be back to being a "Non-Spinner"? Of course not. The rot has set in.
As the diagram clearly shows, the Moon IS rotating wrt the Sun (and the other ‘fixed stars’).
Wrt the Sun, and wrt the fixed stars, the moon is orbiting the Earth, and not rotating on its own axis.
The Moon is orbiting the Sun as the diagram clearly shows.
The moon orbits the Earth, and the Earth orbits the Sun. There is an order to things. You seem to want to seek chaos, for some reason.
The diagram referred to show that the Moon is in orbit around the Sun. Deflected by the Earth sure, but in orbit around the Sun none the less.
The moon orbits the Earth, and the Earth orbits the Sun.
The diagram was a ‘Eureka’ moment in the life of Ken.
You do realize that it shows that the Moon is NOT ‘pointing’ in the direction of its travel around the Sun?
Obviously! The moon is travelling around the Earth whilst the Earth travels around the Sun. The Earth does not keep one face pointed towards the inside of its orbit around the Sun, and the moon does keep one face pointed towards the inside of its orbit around the Earth. Nobody expected the moon to "point" in the direction of its travel around the Sun. How could it? It’s orbiting the Earth.
So why are there different rules for the Moon and the Earth wrt the object they are orbiting?
There aren’t. God you’re confused.
The Moon does not ‘face’ the Sun as it orbits around it.
..because the moon is orbiting the Earth, whilst the Earth orbits the Sun.
In RLH’s head, he believes he’s educated and smart, “I was trained in both science and logic to MSc level.”
In reality, he’s one of the biggest braindead cult idiots here.
Braindead cult idiots refers to Clint R and DREMT (as well as others) as I have already said.
DREMT: The Moon orbits the Sun with a deflection caused by the Earth as the diagram clearly shows.
The moon orbits the Earth, and the Earth orbits the Sun.
Still means the Moon orbits the Sun as well as the Earth.
Technically, no. Obviously the moon is moving around the Sun, in a way, but the moon is actually orbiting the Earth, whilst the Earth orbits the Sun. That’s the proper order of things.
Braindead RLH doesn’t realize that swinging the ball-on-a-string around his head while riding on a merry-go-round would produce the same “trajectory” as he’s fascinated with.
Yet, the ball is NOT rotating about its axis.
So braindead RLH, and the rest of “trajectory fanciers” are going nowhere.
Their just braindead.
They’re just braindead.
Pup has NOTHING.
Ever and anon.
Your useless and ineffective flak validates my comment, Dud.
Thanks.
Holy Kafka trap, Batman!
“The moon orbits the Earth, and the Earth orbits the Sun”
Therefore the Moon orbits the Sun in a braided type path as shown on the diagram above.
No. Therefore the moon orbits the Earth, whilst the Earth orbits the Sun. For f*ck’s sake.
Therefore the Moon orbits the Sun also.
No. An orbital path is not “braided”.
So tell how you would describe the path that the Moon takes around the Sun. I call it braided. What do you call it.
You know, the path as shown in the diagram in question.
Sure, the path is “braided”…and orbital paths are not. Therefore the moon is not orbiting the Sun. The moon is orbiting the Earth, whilst the Earth orbits the Sun.
Or in the direction of its spiral path through the galaxy.
Indeed.
Bindidon
“Could you, according to your own words, exactly describe
– about which axis Moon “rotates in relation to sun”,
and
– why, due to being ‘almost a perfect sphere’, it therefore ‘does not rotate on its axis’ ?
I’m very interested!”
The theme I develop considers planet mean surface temperatures in relation to their solar irradiation cycle.
Everyone knows here what I have discovered is the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon.
The Phenomenon is based on the Planets and Moons diurnal cycles duration.
All moons in solar system are tidally locked to their mother planet. All moons are facing planets with the same side.
Nevertheless, moons have diurnal cycle. There is daytime and nighttime hours, the solar lit hours and dark hours.
My research is based upon that solar and dark hours alternation.
The theme I develop does not study if planets or moons rotate about their own axis. That is why I say they all rotate.
I do not want to confuse readers by distinguishing between the rotation or translation, because both ways for solar irradiated celestial bodies the results for their mean surface temperatures are identical.
In short, the Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon is not “interested” whether body rotates or translates…
What the Phenomenon does is to clearly demonstrate that energy is stored in the planetary surface is relative to the rate of spin.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Vournas
You did not answer in any way to my questions.
It becomes more and more evident that you in fact perfectly know that the Moon rotates around its polar axis.
You manifestly are trying to hide this fact, however, in order to get more approval from the “Non spinner”s for your “No GHG theory”.
But what one tries to hide sometimes suddenly reappears…
There is a nice little proverb in my mother tongue that says:
” Chassez le naturel, et il reviendra au galop. “
Bindidon
There is a nice little proverb in your mother tongue that says:
Chassez le naturel, et il reviendra au galop.
And here it is the:
Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon !
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“My research is based upon that solar and dark hours alternation.
The theme I develop does not study if planets or moons rotate about their own axis. That is why I say they all rotate.”
“I do not want to confuse readers by distinguishing between the rotation or translation, because both ways for solar irradiated celestial bodies the results for their mean surface temperatures are identical.”
How can translation result in a light dark cycle? That makes no sense.
Nate
“How can translation result in a light dark cycle? That makes no sense.”
See… Now you know what I mean! “I do not want to confuse you”.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You said ‘both ways’. ??
I agree with Binny, you are trying to please your luuney fans.
Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon !
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
That theory that fails to match observations…
Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon states:
Planets mean surface temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their (N*cp) products sixteenth root.
I have demonstrated the rightness of this statement when doing planets mean surface temperatures comparison.
When a physics phenomenon is being correctly and precisely demonstrated it is called observation!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Here is the correct fundamental science Christos, your work is not fundamental, simply demonstrates a curve fit:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/09/the-faster-a-planet-rotates-the-warmer-its-average-temperature/
When a physics phenomenon is being correctly and precisely demonstrated it is called observation!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
So how is what Spencer is stating and what Vournas is stating, different? If you would care to read Vournas’ webpage he describes exactly what Spencer describes.
When a physics phenomenon is being correctly and precisely demonstrated it is called observation & the measurement could be arrived at by fudge factor or 1st principles. Christos chooses to use a fudge factor for no fundamental reason.
Vournas uses “their (N*cp) products sixteenth root” as a fudge factor to curve fit the fundamental answer found from 1st principles. Waste of time to go to Vournas’ webpage, just observe what he writes here. Dr. Spencer shows the fundamental reasons why “The Faster a Planet Rotates, the Warmer its Average Temperature”.
If Vournas were fundamentally correct, his solution would reduce to Dr. Spencer’s but that doesn’t happen with “their (N*cp) products sixteenth root” unless you or he can show it does Stephen.
“Vournas uses their (N*cp) products sixteenth root as a fudge factor to curve fit the fundamental answer found from 1st principles. Waste of time to go to Vournas webpage, just observe what he writes here.”
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
No, his description on his webpage is exactly what Spencer describes. His “fudge factor” would only be a “fudge factor” if it applied to one observation. It applies to many.
Calling specific heat and spin fudge factors is idiocy. You’re grasping at straws. You need to find a better angle. Go back and try to figure out why your CERES links don’t support your 255K brightness temperature.
It applies to many, Stephen, because Vournas’ work is a decent curve fit; Vournas’ work doesn’t apply to all as does Dr. Spencer’s work which is fundamental. The CERES link contains the measured data from the real 255K earthen surface, Stephen, so with some research work effort invested even you can figure that out if you have the pre-req.s accomplished.
Ball4,
When a physics phenomenon is being correctly and precisely demonstrated it is called observation!
with some research work effort invested even you can figure that out if you have the pre-req.s accomplished.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos your curve fit doesn’t work (doesn’t “correctly and precisely demonstrate”) as applied to Venus where Dr. Spencer’s universally fundamental work does apply to Venus.
Ball4
“Christos your curve fit doesn’t work (doesn’t “correctly and precisely demonstrate”) as applied to Venus where Dr. Spencer’s universally fundamental work does apply to Venus.”
Ball4, your persistence makes me think you have something to say about my work.
You know, Ball4, I have discovered a New physics Phenomenon.
Also I am well aware of every step it took to come to the final result.
Please, what do you mean by curve fitting I did? You said ” because Vournas’ work is a decent curve fit;”
What do you mean by that? What is this the “decent curve fit;”? Where and what I did curve fitting?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
You found a factor “(N*cp) products sixteenth root” that gives close to the measured planetary temperature in your formula, but it doesn’t work at times because it is not fundamental like Dr. Spencer’s solution which works for every planet. This is the same thing N&Z did with their curve fitting exercise – they also show it doesn’t work at times.
You have not discovered a “New physics Phenomenon” Christos, you have just discovered your own unique factor to get close to the measured planetary and moon temperature for some situations.
Ball4
“You have not discovered a “New physics Phenomenon” Christos, you have just discovered your own unique factor to get close to the measured planetary and moon temperature for some situations.”
Please visit my new post here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-1000369
No. The work you show here is clearly not worth following up further.
Nate,
He’s saying that argument isn’t important to his theory. With respect to his surface rotational warming phenomenon, the Moon has 29.5 times less spin than the Earth relative to the Sun. That is the same side of the Moon doesn’t receive all the Sunlight. He has no skin in that game of whether the Moon can be described as rotating about its axis, and is irrelevant to his theory. Maybe if you can show him how it does have relevancy then he will address it.
The argument that translation can produce a light dark cycle? It cannot. Only rotation can.
Of course, neither of you will get that.
And neither of you addressed the problem that his theory utterly fails to match the observed energy flux radiated from the Earth.
> Nobody expected the moon to “point” in the direction of its travel around the Sun. How could it?
Kiddo almost got it.
All he needs is to ask himself the same question regarding the Moon’s orbit around the Earth.
Simple, isn’t it?
You are one of Stop following me around, stop responding to my comments, stop referring to me in your own comments. We’re done.
Said the troll.
Willard knows I no longer respond to him, so why would he keep responding to my comments, or mentioning me in his own comments, unless it’s to troll?
My comment posted before I’d finished. There was going to be more before "You are one of…" and "Stop following me around…"
Never mind.
That is where you are wrong, Kiddo.
You respond to me by apophasis.
That is where you are wrong, Kiddo:
You are not Roy’s Mod.
Nobody expects a moon to *point* in the direction of its travel around its planet.
How could it?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-994189
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-994187
When Earth “spins” once per it’s orbit around the sun, it’s not spinning once upon it’s axis- as we have winter and summer and 2 other seasons [the spinning axis direction is not the same in regard sun- though in regards to stars, a different issue.]
Or we have shorter day because of the direction earth is spinning. Venus spins the other direction and has longer day because of direction of spin. Mercury also has longer day and sun appears to go backward during a day on the surface of Mercury.
Trivia points: When does sun always appear to go backward when on Mercury surface?
DREMT
You are free to write ridiculous comments.
Willard is free to ridicule them.
That’s why they call it Freedom of Speech.
I know, that’s why many people ridicule your comments, Entropic Man. I am not denying that Willard has the right to comment. I’m simply pointing out that if you are going to continue to respond to someone that you know is no longer responding to you, then your motives for posting cannot be pure. It’s obviously not about debate.
Your choice.
If you can’t, don’t or won’t defend your positions then the rest of us will draw our own conclusions about their validity.
What are you talking about, Ent?
DREMT patiently defends his positions as well as anyone. You don’t even come close. You’re just another useless troll.
I’m simply pointing out that if a commenter continues to address someone that they know is no longer responding to them, then their motives for posting cannot be pure. It’s obviously not about debate.
Please stop trolling, Kiddo.
Sincerely,
The prize in the debates here is the belief of the lurkers. Willard’s aim is not to convince you, but to convince the silent audience that you are wrong.
Then his plan backfires. The lurkers are kept aware that I am no longer responding to Willard. They are then aware that when he keeps writing his (usually completely stupid and self-evidently wrong, or blatantly manipulative) posts in response to me, or mentioning me, that he is doing so knowing that he will not get a response, and is thus using that to his advantage, to make it seem as though I can’t respond. The lurkers then see through Willard for what sort of person he really is.
The lurkers know that if a commenter continues to address someone that they know is no longer responding to them, then their motives for posting cannot be pure. It’s obviously not about debate.
Now DREMT can read the lurkers minds.
Actually, I doubt there are too many people bothering to read through all this crap.
It’s only 50% crap.
Stop following me around, stop responding to my comments, stop referring to me in your own comments. Were done.
I will reduce my posting if you will too.
I don’t care what you do. I would be able to comment less if I wasn’t constantly inundated with inane responses from all sides. I cannot post anything without getting some sort of stupid response. Even this post, which was just a post from another thread that wound up in the wrong place by mistake, has now attracted a response.
> I cannot post anything
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo:
You’re not posting anything.
You’re posting shit.
Or rather you’re shitposting.
This is trolling. Please stop.
Here’s an explanation as to why you should:
https://twitter.com/screaminbutcalm/status/1105577845642878976
See what I mean?
See, Kiddo?
That is apophasis.
Still getting responses…
Still trolling…
Kiddo just can’t stop.
Another response!
DREMT is an idiot.
You people seem to be unable to pull your heads out of each others asses
https://i.postimg.cc/brsTScRP/think-tank.png
…and another response!
DREMT is another idiot.
…and another one!
Nobody expects a moon to *point* in the direction of its travel around its planet.
How could it?
Moon Dragon cranks should ponder on that puzzle.
Dud, the same side of Moon (“front”) always faces Moon’s forward direction.
You have no clue about any of this. That’s why you’re a braindead cult idiot. And, you can’t keep from stalking people, making you also a useless troll.
You’re a double loser, like RLH.
Pup,
You fell into the trap again:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lunar_libration_with_phase2.gif
So much fun to win so easily!
Now you’re throwing up links you don’t understand?
I wonder where you learned that trick….
NOTHING to be done with Pup.
Perhaps if he cranks up to 15% of the comments he’ll finally offer some empirical evidence?
willard…”Nobody expects a moon to *point* in the direction of its travel around its planet”.
***
Well, it does, just like a locomotive following an elliptical track. The same side always points to the centre of the ellipse and the headlight always points down the track.
That’s how the Moon moves in its orbit.
> just like a locomotive following an elliptical track
C’mon, Gordo. An orbit isn’t a track. Even the ancients knew that celestial bodies are not like chariots.
Nothing prevents the Moon to wobble, and in fact we have observational evidence that it does:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration
You and other Moon Dragon cranks are confusing yourself with your own analogies. If you want a more plausible one, take a yo-yo or a diablo instead. Make sure that the cord isn’t totally fixed to the center (so that it can skid) and you’re good to go.
You really should take time to think.
willard…”An orbit isnt a track”.
***
Red-herring alert!!!
C’mon, Gordo. You keep using fallacy fluff words. They do not mean what you make them mean.
The Moon wobbles, waggles, and wavers. We know that by observation. Anyone who knows that does not expect the Moon to *point* in the direction of its travel around the Earth.
Besides, why would it?
Time to dust off your old celestial mechanics textbooks.
I have posted this before
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Treachery_of_Images
“Well, it does, just like a locomotive following an elliptical track.”
These guys are simply unable to think outside their terrestrial transport boxes!
Horses, cars, trains, planes, balls on strings. None of them are good representations of planetary motion in vacuum.
Troll Nate, these examples and analogies are useful for helping the uneducated to learn. But, the problem is you’re braindead. The uneducated can be educated, but the braindead can’t learn.
” are useful for helping the uneducated to learn”
They are useful for uneducated trolls who cannot understand the actual problem, to lead the uneducated to deeper ignorance.
christos…”The theme I develop does not study if planets or moons rotate about their own axis. That is why I say they all rotate”.
***
Christos…here’s a way to observe it. We all agree that the Earth rotates around its north-south axis while orbiting the Sun. If you draw a radial line from the Earth’s N-S axis to the Equator, where the Equator meets the Greenwich Meridian, that radial line will point at the Sun every day at noon. During the rest of the day it points further away from the Sun until at half its rotation it is pointed directly away from the Sun.
Now, consider the same kind of radial line on the Moon. It always points at the Earth and never rotates away from the Earth. If it rotated like the radial line on Earth, by the time the Moon was halfway through its orbit, the radial line would point away from Earth, just as the radial line on Earth points away from the Sun at half-rotation.
Alternately, as Clint likes to point out, the side of the Moon facing along the orbital path always points along the orbital path. It has to if the side 90 degrees to its left always points at the Earth.
I compare that to a locomotive following an elliptical track. The headlight on the locomotive always points along the track while the same side of the locomotive always points to the interior of the elliptical track. Just like the Moon in its orbit.
“It always points at the Earth and never rotates away from the Earth”
But it does not always point at the same place on the Earth because of Lunar libration, just in its general direction, so you analogy is quite false.
> the side of the Moon facing along the orbital path always points along the orbital path. It has to if the side 90 degrees to its left always points at the Earth.
C’mon, Gordo. Do you read what you write? All you said was that a right angle was 90 degrees. Even if it was insightful, dividing the Moon in sides does not solve anything.
Think of the Moon like a very big baseball which has been thrown out of the ballpark of the Earth a long time ago but still has some of its initial momentum.
How can you describe its motion? In many ways. You could say that it stopped spinning and only translates forward. You could say that its spin is synchronized with its orbit. Both description are equivalent as far as geometry is concerned, at least insofar as we accept that the orbit of the Moon is circular. They “preserve the phenomenon,” roughly speaking.
The real kicker is the following – which description makes physical sense? There lies the Moon Dragon cranks problem. Every time they try to answer it, Tim knocks their solutions down.
Once we block geometry trolling, Moon Dragon cranks become a sad bunch. Witness Kiddo pouting as we speak.
And that’s more or less the memo.
willard…”> GR…the side of the Moon facing along the orbital path always points along the orbital path. It has to if the side 90 degrees to its left always points at the Earth”.
C’mon, Gordo. Do you read what you write? All you said was that a right angle was 90 degrees. Even if it was insightful, dividing the Moon in sides does not solve anything.
I read what I write before I post but obviously you don’t. How can I dumb this down so you’ll understand it? What am I saying, there’s no way you’ll ever understand it?
The side of the Moon facing along the orbital path is like the front of the locomotive with its headlight shining down the track. Too complex???
The side of the Moon 90 degrees to its left…given a CCW direction…is the side facing the Earth. Duh!!!
Come on, Willard, unless you have a learning disability, even you can get that.
C’mon, Gordo.
You’re not listening:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libration
The Moon does not keep still.
The Moon wobbles, waggles, and wavers.
But even if I grant you your silly model, it does not imply what you make it imply.
Take a boat. It moves from A to B.
Do you think it’s on tracks? No, it floats.
Do you think it always faces B. No, it floats.
Suppose it does. Do you think it’s because it does not fight the current? No, it does not merely float. Its dynamics can’t be deduced by behavior alone. You need some physics.
Same for celestial bodies.
willard…”Take a boat. It moves from A to B”.
***
Your red-herring is starting to stink. Focus on what we are talking about, a celestial body orbiting another body with the same face pointing to that body at all times. Same thing as a locomotive on an elliptical track. .
GR: You were the one who claimed that human muscles alone could not push tons of weight around but that is done with boats, barges, etc. all the time.
Boats are a great analogy for Moons as they have great mass and, if circular, no ‘preferred’ direction.
If you were to construct a circular boat and fix a pole in its center and attach it to a pivot by a rope from that pole (like the ball-on-a-string you all go on about) then it would remain ‘pointing’ at a fixed position in the horizon, not the direction it is travelling in.
> your red herrings
You keep using this expression, Gordo. It does not mean what you make it mean.
Look. That we always see the Man on the Moon does not imply that the Moon does not spin. No amount of half baked geometry arm waving will disprove that.
The Moon floats. It wobbles and wavers. Like a boat, there are many ways by which it can go from A to B. You need physics to explain its behaviour.
Everything I just said meets yours fair and square.
Think.
LaNina forecast has just been stretched
The forecaster consensus anticipates La Nia to persist longer, potentially returning to ENSO-neutral during April-June 2022.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.shtml?fbclid=IwAR3jcTxKuT2mb5xdYpcoYOv4Q7EotxJacOPf7NBrpU3kAu_DR1hq7gl8ITM
Climate shystering update
https://youtu.be/hJrPHJGYbM4
More alarmist hackers kissing up for funding.
Everything in the past was colder than it is right now. Except when it wasn’t.
entropic…”Your body has lower entropy, a higher energy concentration and a higher temperature than your environment.
By your rules energy cannot flow from your environment into your body and the energy stored in your body can only have got there by LOT violation”.
***
As Clint claimed, your understanding of thermodynamics does not exist. Your body temperature is 98.6F (37C) and it’s temperature is maintained by the food you eat. At the same time, your body is expending heat to your environment. You wear clothes to slow down the dissipation of body heat.
In other words, we generate heat internally and we are not warmed by our environments unless temperatures exceed 98.6F or 37C.
If you stop eating altogether, and you sit naked in a room at 20C, you will go on losing heat to your environment till you start to shiver. As you continue without eating, you will become colder and colder, then you will die of hypothermia. The same will happen if you are fully clothes, it will just take longer.
You may die first of internal organ failure related to scurvy. However, I think the chances are good you’ll die from hypothermia.
Your body will do what it can to sustain life, like shutting down blood supply to the skin.
Unless you are in an environment where the environmental temperatures are close to your body temperature, you are losing heat to your environment. On the other hand, sitting in a warm bath with a temperature of only 104F (40C), will warm you.
The 2nd law holds.
Not in your system.
You’ve repeatedly claimed that energy cannot flow from colder to hotter, or in modern parlance from higher to lower entropy.
Your recent willingness to accept that this can be achieved by doing work is a sign that you are finally learning modern physics.
Perhaps you do exist.
ken…from Britannica…orbit, in astronomy, path of a body revolving around an attracting centre of mass, as a planet around the Sun or a satellite around a planet”.
***
The Moon does not meet this requirement for the Sun. It does meet the requirements for orbiting the Earth. The Sun is not considered the attracting body for the Moon but the Earth is the attracting body.
Also, when NASA fires a satellite into Earth orbit, do you think they allow for the satellite orbiting the Sun in their calculations?
When an airliner takes off and flies at 35,000 feet around the Equator, is it orbiting the Sun? Does the pilot or the autopilot have to adjust the airliner to keep it in orbit around the Sun? No, neither cares about the gravitational attraction of the Sun because it is irrelevant.
The Sun (and all the other planets) have an influence, some strongly, on the Moon’s orbit of the Earth. That is why it is so difficult to predict it with absolute certainty as a simple ellipse.
rlh…”Draw a similar radial line on the Moon. It is always pointed at the Earth
It is ROUGHLY pointed at the Earth, but not at the same identical point on the Earth. Come on, Gordon, dust off your thinking cap and put it on”.
***
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Thanks you, Richard.
Now, back to business. I have pointed out in previous posts that the radial line from Moon’s centre through the near face does NOT point directly at Earth’s centre. That’s because the Moon is on an elliptical orbit. Were it on a circular orbit, the line would point always at Earth’s centre like a true radial line in a circle.
To see in which direction the lunar radial line is pointed, draw lines from each focal point to the Moon’s current centre then bisect the angle formed by the lines. The bisector is the radial line and a line perpendicular to it where it intercepts the orbital path is the tangent line to the ellipse at that point.
Because that line, which indicates the way the near face is pointed, does not point directly at Earth’s centre, we can see a few degrees around the longitudional edge of the Moon.
We call that libration.
You’re nearly there, Richard, try to focus.
Idiot. So the ‘face’ on the Moon does not always face the direction of travel at all. As you have just agreed.
Think a large circular boat attached at its center via a freely rotating pivot to similar rotating pivot on a circular dock it travels around for your ball-on-a-string analogy and you will get closer to reality. Nothing will make that boat ‘face’ the direction of travel.
Gordon,
“The bisector is the radial line and a line perpendicular to it where it intercepts the orbital path is the tangent line to the ellipse at that point.
Because that line, which indicates the way the near face is pointed”
Thats all nice geometry, but it is at best, a guess, that lacks physics and evidence.
IOW it is just made-up.
It ignores conservation of angular momentum, which requires that the Moon keep spinning at constant rate during its whole orbit.
The Moons ORIIENTATION vector rotates at a constant rate.
But the Moon’s ORBITAL velocity vector does not rotate at a constant rate. It speeds up and slows down in the elliptical orbit.
Thus the Moon’s orientation vector lags or leads the velocity vector.
Your’s and Clint’s ‘model’ assumes that the Moon’s rotation rate can vary to match its orbital rate– to keep it ‘on track’.
No. Physics says it cannot do that.
“I have pointed out in previous posts that the radial line from Moons centre through the near face does NOT point directly at Earths centre. Thats because the Moon is on an elliptical orbit. ”
And I have pointed out that this is the WRONG explanation. Consider a moon 1/8th of the way around the ellipse and 3/8th of the way around (starting at perigee). With your explanation, the moon would have a symmetric sort of orientation at these two points. It would point a bit to one side of the center of the ellipse at 1/8th, and just as much to the other side at 3/8th. This is simply not how the moon behaves.
When your theory doesn’t match reality, you have to find annother, better theory.
> Because that line, which indicates the way the near face is pointed, does not point directly at Earths centre, we can see a few degrees around the longitudional edge of the Moon.
Gordo the Astronomer, meet Gordo the Geometer:
[GORDO THE GEOMETER] the side of the Moon facing along the orbital path always points along the orbital path. It has to if the side 90 degrees to its left always points at the Earth.
Only one of them can be right.
They prolly are but wrong, but still.
Willard, assuming Gordon means the direction of his angle bisector, then the two are actually compatible. One of the cool properties of an ellipse is that sound waves or light waves or pool balls that leave one focus will bounce to the other focus. (Hence the name “focus”!) no matter where you draw a normal to an ellipse, the two foci are equal angles to the two sides. I saw a video of someone who actually made an elliptical pool table!
The two descriptions are consistent. If a bead follows an elliptical wire, the hole through the bead always points forward, while a point 90 degrees always points along the angle bisector.
They are consistent … but wrong. The real moon is not oriented like a bead on a wire. Not like a car on an elliptical road.
As I read the two claims, Tim, they are consistent only if the head of the bead is allowed to wobble too. For 90 degrees to a fixed point is 90 degrees.
In any event, if the line that connects the Moon to the Earth isn’t fixed, there’s no reason to believe that the line connecting the Moon to its orbit path is fixed too.
Four braindead cult idiots in a row!
First RLH indicates he can’t understand the different faces of Moon. He confuses “near face” with “front face”. And then, the ignores the ball-on-a-string to invent a “boat-on-a-string”, not realizing the flaws in that.
Next, Nate gets everything WRONG, as usual. Angular momentum is conserved because Moon is not rotating, and continues to not rotate. And his confusion about “lags or leads” is due to his not understanding libration.
Third, Folkerts is still confused about “libration”. (Tim, if you can tell us what you believe “libration” is, in less than 25 words, I’ll add it to the growing list of your “perversions of physics”.)
And Dud is the fourth braindead cult idiot. He’s trying to find minor mis-wording from Gordon, not being aware of his own: “They prolly [sic] are but [sic] wrong, but still.”
Have you done the Poll Dance Experiment yet, Pup?
My point is not about Gordos misweurding, which you conflate with spelling, but with his heroic defense of Kiddos silly snorting.
“Moon is not rotating, and continues to not rotate.”
And Clints so busy trollin that he contradicts DREMT and reality!
“…Nate gets everything WRONG, as usual.”
“Tim, if you can tell us what you believe “libration” is, in less than 25 words, Ill add it to the growing list of your perversions of physics.”
In typical Clint fashion, he doesn’t care whether something might be right or wrong. He simply disagrees with everything on principle.
Ftop_t has settled the libration issue, over on the other thread, Tim. He’s currently being trolled by my two stalkers, of course, who refuse to listen to a word he’s saying, but he’s settled the issue.
What is “the libration issue” pray tell? There are all sorts of “libration issues” floating around.
Folkerts, we already know you’re wrong. I just want to see what your definition of “libration” is, so I can add it to your growing list of “perversions of physics”.
Remember, your “definition” must be no more than 25 words, and it must coincide with all your previous statements involving libration. You don’t want to be inconsistent, do you?
Thanks.
Pup has yet to contribute ANYTHING that could be deemed worth our while in this thread. Will his 213th comment break his bad streak of trolling?
Dud, you could never understand reality, so you will never appreciate my contributions here.
But your incompetent flak indicates you know what I’m adding has to be shot down. You must try to stop truth from getting out. But all of your efforts are futile.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Pup,
You contributed about 14% of the comments.
You gave NOTHING except abuse and blunders.
Even Mike Flynn has more honour than you.
Not wonder you are a silly sock puppet.
Fun!
“The Moon revolves around Earth in an elliptical orbit with a mean eccentricity of 0.0549. Thus, the Moon’s center-to-center distance from Earth varies with mean values of 363,396 km at perigee to 405,504 km at apogee. The lunar orbital period with respect to the stars (sidereal month) is 27.32166 days (27d 07h 43m 12s). However, there are three other orbital periods or months that are crucial to the understanding and prediction of eclipses. These three cycles and the harmonics between them determine when, where, and how solar and lunar eclipses occur.
The mutual gravitational force between the Sun and Moon is over twice as large as between the Moon and Earth. For this reason, the Sun plays a dominant role in perturbing the Moon’s motion. The ever changing distances and relative positions between the Sun, Moon, and Earth, the inclination of the Moon’s orbit, the oblateness of Earth, and (to a lesser extent) the gravitational attraction of the other planets all act to throw the Moon’s orbital parameters into a constant state of change. Although the Moon’s position and velocity can be described by the classic Keplerian orbital elements, such osculating elements are only valid for a single instant in time (Chapront-Touze’ and Chapront, 1991). Nevertheless, these instantaneous parameters are of value in understanding the Moon’s complex motions particularly with respect to the three major orbital cycles that govern eclipses.”
https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/moonorbit.html
“The Moon revolves around Earth…”
…whilst the Earth revolves around the Sun. Exactly.
So therefore the Moon orbits the Sun which has a greater influence on it than the Earth does.
The moon orbits the Earth, whilst the Earth orbits the Sun.
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Measure width of angel’s butt. Measure diameter of pin.
Divide one by the other.
You’re arguing semantics.
Bottom line is Moon rotates around its axis during its transit around the sun.
“The moon orbits the Earth, whilst the Earth orbits the Sun.”
“The moon orbits the sun”
These are two equivalently good (or equivalently bad) descriptions.
The earth-moon barycenter orbits the sun.
The earth and the moon both orbit the earth-moon barycenter.
(With small perturbations from the other planets).
Tim adds nothing of value, as usual. Ken says, "bottom line is Moon rotates around its axis during its transit around the sun". No Ken, the moon orbits the Earth (without rotating on its own axis) whilst the Earth orbits the Sun (whilst rotating on its own axis).
Ken believes: “Bottom line is Moon rotates around its axis during its transit around the sun.”
NOPE. Moon does not rotate “around its axis”. We know because we always see the same side from Earth. If Moon had axial rotation, we would see all sides of it.
DREMT is making progress in relativity since an object can be both spinning and not spinning at the same time like our moon rotating on its own axis wrt to the sun and:
…the moon orbits the Earth (without rotating on its own axis wrt earth) whilst the Earth orbits the Sun (whilst rotating on its own axis wrt to the sun).
Ball4 is still very confused about rotation, and always will be.
DREMT will understand I’m not confused at all once DREMT masters relativity.
Ball4 will realize that I have always understood relativity when he finally grasps the difference between "orbital motion" and "axial rotation".
Clint R
“Moon does not rotate around its axis. We know because we always see the same side from Earth. If Moon had axial rotation, we would see all sides of it. ”
From anywhere outside the Moon’s orbit we see all sides of the Moon, just as from outside its circuit we see all sides of the ball on a string.
Must have axial rotation.
Both Norman and Bindidon have claimed that the ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis, E Man. Argue it out with them.
Ent provides us with another example of his cult’s inability to learn.
Both the ball and Moon are orbiting, but not rotating. That’s why you would see only one side from inside the orbit, but would see all sides from outside the orbit.
I’m sure we’ll see more examples from other braindead cult idiots.
Put and Kiddo can’t make it past the first paragraph of an affine geometry book:
https://sites.millersville.edu/rumble/Math.355/Book/Chapter%201.pdf
Flop could, but he’s too busy playing the black-hat math guy.
DREMT, both Norman and Bindidon have claimed that the ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis wrt to the string.
False, Ball4.
The record proves you wrong DREMT as it shows otherwise, the internet never forgets.
Prove it then. Show the record.
The record is available for anyone that wants to do so.
Translation: Ball4 cannot prove it.
Neither can DREMT. It is possible to find the record for those that want to do so.
Ball4 cannot prove his claim.
Neither can DREMT.
Ball4 already tacitly accepts my claim, he just adds the additional words “wrt to the string”. Hence I have nothing to prove, whereas he needs to prove that those additional words were spoken or implied. He will not be able to do so, hence he deflects.
DREMT has to prove DREMT’s claim made that a commenter is wrong about the physics. These particular commenters are not wrong and that is what the record shows.
Ball4 twists and distorts everything, as usual. What a troll. He will just keep on going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going, and going…
Kiddo keeps being wrong.
…and going, and going, and going. Any time I say certain things, Ball4 is triggered to respond with the same old rubbish.
Bindidon and Norman have both argued that the ball on a string is not rotating on its own axis.
… wrt to the string.
See? Any time I say certain things…
DREMT still needs to master relativity so needs correcting in its application many times.
They did not say "wrt the string" nor did they say anything to imply that they meant "wrt the string". Maybe they understand something you don’t understand. Have you ever considered that?
Don’t use your words for them; use their words.
It is on you to show that they said or implied “wrt the string”. You clearly cannot do so.
No it is on DREMT to show their physics is wrong. DREMT hasn’t done so because DREMT hasn’t yet mastered relativity.
It is on Ball4 to show that they said or implied “wrt the string”. Ball4 clearly cannot do so. This message will be repeated, for as long as is necessary.
Repeating something does not make it correct. As you have shown continuously.
#2
It is on Ball4 to show that they said or implied “wrt the string”. Ball4 clearly cannot do so. This message will be repeated, for as long as is necessary.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-1002615
Fun to watch DREMT run in circles just like a dog chasing his tail.
#3
It is on Ball4 to show that they said or implied “wrt the string”. Ball4 clearly cannot do so. This message will be repeated, for as long as is necessary.
Keep chasing your tail DREMT rather than upping your physics game through relevant study. It’s fun for many to watch DREMT do so.
#4
It is on Ball4 to show that they said or implied “wrt the string”. Ball4 clearly cannot do so. This message will be repeated, for as long as is necessary.
RLH doesn’t understand any of this.
Because Earth and Moon have the same average distance to Sun, Sun’s “influence” is NOT greater on Earth. Sun’s “influence” is the same for both Earth and Moon.
(I predict none of the braindead cult idiots will understand this.)
Pup still can’t grok that size matters in the gravity game.
While EM corrects his mistakes, Pup doubles down!
That maths says otherwise.
Newton showed that gravitational attraction depended on both masses.
“Newton’s law of universal gravitation is usually stated as that every particle attracts every other particle in the universe with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between their centers”
The Sun is much, much bigger than either the Earth or the Moon.
So the maths works out that the attraction between the Moon and the Sun is about twice that of the Moon and the Earth even though the Moon/Earth distance is much closer.
> Because Earth and Moon have the same average distance to Sun, Sun’s “influence” is NOT greater on Earth.
Pup might forget that the Sun is kinda big. He might misread Richard’s “than” in “the Moon orbits the Sun which has a greater influence on it than the Earth does.”
That the Sun is kinda important in the Solar system is one of the main rationale behind “But the Sun” in the Climateball Bingo. But then the Moon Dragon cranks will contradict their other trollish endeavours for the sake of trolling.
As predicted, Dud can’t understand. The issue involves gravity, not solar energy.
He is so braindead that he can’t keep up.
And since he can’t learn, he will just keep trolling anyway.
> The issue involves gravity,
Which part of “Pup might forget that the Sun is kinda big” you do not get, Pup?
No wonder you can’t do the Pole Dance Experiment.
Willard at 1:05 PM
I believe they still teach this in grade school, that the sun’s gravitational influence on the Moon is ~1,000 times greater than the Earth’s.
That’s where some 6th graders learn this terrible joke: Your Mommas so fat, the recursive function calculating her gravitational pull caused a stack overflow.
“I believe they still teach this in grade school, that the sun’s gravitational influence on the Moon is ~1,000 times greater than the Earth’s.”
Yes TM, you’ve mentioned that you’ve had a sad upbringing. Likely many others of your cult have had similar sad stories.
It’s no surprise why you’re always projecting.
> Ftop_t has settled the libration issue, over on the other thread, Tim. Hes currently being trolled by my two stalkers,
That’s the kind of comment that undermines Kiddo’s “who, me?” stance:
It also clearly shows that Kiddo’s trolling.
He should stop. He can’t.
Rather than argue about the forces between Sun, Moon and Earth; why emit do the calculation.
F=m1m2G/d^2
Mass of Sun = 1.99*10^30kg
Mass of Earth = 5.9*10^24kg
Mass of Moon = 7.4*10^22
Radius of Earth/Moon system orbit = 1.49*10^15m
Radius of Moon’s orbit around Earth = 3.83*10^11
Force between Sun and Earth 3.57*10^14N
Force between Sun and Moon 4.42*10^12N
Force between Earth and Moon 1.44*10^20N
The moon orbits the Earth, whilst the Earth orbits the Sun.
The Moon and the Earth are being accelerated by the Sun at the same rate. They are both orbiting the Sun in the same 1.49*10^15m radius orbit.
The only effect of the Earth on the Moon is to vary the Moon’s orbital distance from the Sun by +/-3.8*10^11m or 0.25%.
Forget your delusion, DREMT.
Both Earth and Moon are orbiting the Sun. In addition, the Moon is orbiting the Earth.
The moon orbits the Earth, whilst the Earth orbits the Sun.
The Moon and the Earth orbit around the Sun and around each other.
The moon orbits the Earth, whilst the Earth orbits the Sun.
Therefore the Moon orbits the Sun.
False.
“The only effect of the Earth on the Moon is to vary the Moon’s orbital distance from the Sun by +/-3.8*10^11m or 0.25%.”
More mistakes, Ent.
3.8*10^11m is off by about 1000.
Next, Moon orbits Earth. You’re confusing yourself if you believe otherwise.
Several mistakes there, Ent.
Start with the two distances shown.
Thanks Ent
Let me fix a few things …
Radius of Earth/Moon system orbit = 1.5*10^11 m
= 150 million km (not 10^15, off by 10,000)
Radius of Moons orbit around Earth = 3.83*10^8
= 384 thousand km (not 10^11, off by 1000)
Force between Sun and Earth = 3.5*10^22
(not 3.57*10^14N)
Force between Sun and Moon 4.3*10^20
(4.42*10^12N)
Force between Earth and Moon 2.0*10^20
(not 1.44*10^20N)
******************
You had the earth-moon force MUCH bigger then the sun-moon force, which is wrong. As an order of magnitude, the sun is 1000x farther than the earth, but 1,000,000x more massive, making the forces similar in magnitude.
Tim, Clint
I hate powers of 10 errors!
Thanks for the corrections.
I think this eejit was converting from km to m by multiplying by 10^6 instead of 10^3.
I should not be doing maths after my bedtime (rueful smile)
I have looked at a large number of physics books, and not a one of them has an equation for “influence”. Why would anyone argue about something as vague and undefined as ‘influence’ when there are such simple, easily calculated ideas that should be used.
“Influence” could mean “force”
So just calculate GM1M2/r^2. The numbers are all easily found. Using the earth’s force on the moon as our basic unit, then the relative forces are …
180 = sun’s force on earth (not ‘1000x’)
180 = earth’s force on sun
2.2 = sun’s force on moon
2.2 = moon’s force on sun
1.0 = earth’s force on moon
1.0 = moon’s force on earth
“Influence” could mean “acceleration”
Then using the acceleration of the moon by the earth as the basis. the relative accelerations are
2.2 Earth’s acceleration due to the sun
2.2 Moon’s acceleration due to the sun
1.0 Moon’s acceleration due to the earth
0.0123 Earth’s acceleration due to moon.
0.0000066 Sun’s acceleration due to earth
0.000000081 Sun’s acceleration due to moon.
Was that really that tough?? (I think I got all that correct)
I didn’t check all his figures, but at least these two appear correct:
2.2 Earth’s acceleration due to the sun
2.2 Moon’s acceleration due to the sun
At least Folkerts realizes the acceleration is the same.
Now if he can just learn that ice cubes cannot boil water….
tim…”Then using the acceleration of the moon by the earth as the basis. the relative accelerations are
2.2 Earths acceleration due to the sun”
***
Once again, Tim, there is no acceleration of a mass unless it moves in the direction of the applied force. The Earth and the Moon have constant linear momentum therefore no acceleration in that direction. Therefore the only acceleration could be in the direction of gravity. If that happened, the Earth would need to move closer to the Sun and that does not happening.
Neither does the Moon accelerate toward Earth since that would mean a change in its orbital altitude, which is not happening.
The misuse of kinematics without an understanding of the physical reality leads to such incorrect assumptions. People are confusing acceleration with force because they are incorrectly transposing f = ma to get a = f/m, or equivalent. You have to be might careful when transposing such an equation.
One of the most egregious abuses of that came from Einstein. He regarded time as a real phenomenon like force or mass and it led to him claiming time can dilate, which is nonsense. The entire theory of space-time is pseudo-scientific nonsense.
“Tim, there is no acceleration of a mass unless it moves in the direction of the applied force. ”
Acceleration is dv/dt, where v is the velocity vector. Any change in velocity — either magnitude or direction — is an acceleration.
“The Earth and the Moon have constant linear momentum ”
Momentum is a vector. Any change in that vector — either magnitude or direction — means the vector is not constant. The earth’s linear momentum reverses every 6 months.
You need to pull out those dusty textbooks of yours!
tim…”You need to pull out those dusty textbooks of yours!”
***
Be more specific. Do you think you can have acceleration without motion?
Do you think changing the direction of a velocity vector without changing its magnitude, changes the overall effect of the vector? If so, explain what happens.
The Moon represents a very unique situation. There is no resistance to change its momentum and we know the only way to change such a momentum is to apply a force in the direction of motion to increase momentum or apply a force in the opposite direction of motion to reduce its momentum. Simply changing the direction of a momentum vector does not change it momentum.
As far as I can see, the only advantage in stating a direction for a vector is to enable addition and subtraction. Or maybe multiplication or division or using a matrix operator. Any real change to the vector quantity involves operating on its scalar quantity.
Gordon,
We don’t know this, maybe you and the mouse in your pocket do, but it is not true.
“There is no resistance to change its momentum and we know the only way to change such a momentum is to apply a force in the direction of motion to increase momentum or apply a force in the opposite direction of motion to reduce its momentum.”
What about if the force is applied at a right angle to the velocity vector, Victor?
Velocity and Momentum are vectors that have a directional part, if you change the direction you change the vector.
“Simply changing the direction of a momentum vector does not change it momentum.”
Yes. It does. This is Physics 101.
A 0.5 kg ball traveling at 10 m/s in the +x direction hits a wall and bounces back elastically at 10 m/s in the -x direction.
The initial momentum is 5 kg*m/s. The final momentum is -10 kg*m/s. The change is (final – initial) = -5 – 5 = -10 kg*m/s.
This should not need to be explained to anyone with even a basic understanding of mechanics.
Typo …
The initial momentum is 5 kg*m/s. The final momentum is -5 (not -10) kg*m/s.
F=m1m2G/r^2
G=6.672 x 10-11 Nm2/kg2
M Sun = 1.989 10^30 kg
M Earth = 5.972 10^24 kg
M Moon = 7.347 x 10^22 kg
Earth Moon distance = 384,400,000 m
Earth/Moon Sun distance = 149,597,870,000 m
F Earth Moon = 1.98 x 10^20 N
F Earth Sun = 3.54 x 10^22 N
F Moon Sun = 4.36 x 10^20 N
yeah, Ent has some errors.
Thanks, Ken.
Respect.
Note to everybody. It’s very good practice to check such arguments for oneself, rather than just accept them as read.
That applies both to arguments that agree with your view and those that disagree.
It is very easy to fall into the twin traps.
Confirmation bias is accepting too easily evidence which supports your view.
Cognitive dissonance is rejecting too easily evidence against your view.
There is also the trap of assuming that the other guy is an idiot because he cannot see the obvious correctness of your view. Who knows? He may have more information showing you are the idiot.
That’s why all scientific debate should be about the evidence and not the personalities.
“That’s why all scientific debate should be about the evidence and not the personalities.”
I agree. That’s why when the evidence shows someone to be an idiot, they’re an idiot, regardless of their personality.
Someone claims ice cubes can boil water — IDIOT.
Someone claims passenger jets fly backwards when circumnavigating — IDIOT.
Someone claims there is a “real 255K surface”, when there isn’t — IDIOT.
Science prevails regardless of personalities.
Ice cubes can cause a higher temperature in water as Dr. Spencer showed by experiment, passenger jets fly backwards according to Clint, and it’s Clint that can’t locate the measured earthen 255K surface despite being given clues from various commenters.
Carry on Clint, your duties as blog laughing stock are essential to ongoing blog entertainment.
Thanks for being such a great example of “braindead cult idiot”, Ball4.
Thanks for being a braindead cult idiot Clint R.
“Someone claims…”
yada yada.
And no one has claimed any of these.
That makes Clint the idiot, and a fraud.
RLH has been correctly stating Force between sun and moon is twice that of earth and moon.
nate…”Thats all nice geometry, but it is at best, a guess, that lacks physics and evidence.
It ignores conservation of angular momentum, which requires that the Moon keep spinning at constant rate during its whole orbit”.
***
No angular momentum involved, only the linear momentum of the Moon. It’s always trying to move in a straight line. My explanation is based on the fact that the Moon does not rotate about a local axis. If you regard the explanation in that context it makes perfect sense,
***********
“The Moons ORIIENTATION vector rotates at a constant rate”.
***
If by orientation vector, you mean a vector representing the tangent line created by the Moon’s near side, I agree. However, it is rotating around the Earth, not the Moon’s centre.
*******************
“But the Moons ORBITAL velocity vector does not rotate at a constant rate. It speeds up and slows down in the elliptical orbit”.
The Moon does not have an orbital velocity vector, only a linear velocity vector that is, at any instant, pointing along a line tangential to the elliptical curve and trying to move along a straight line. That vector cannot speed up and slow down since that would require an enhancing or resistant force, and there is none.
You are confusing the average SPEED the Moon taken over a longer distance created on the elliptical path. However, that is due to its linear momentum having more effect over gravity in certain parts of the orbit.
*************
“Thus the Moons orientation vector lags or leads the velocity vector”.
***
Not so. They are one and the same, depending on whether you take the velocity vector at the near side, the COG, or the far side.
That velocity vector is being redirected by gravity each instant, but it is always representing a linear velocity.
******************
“Yours and Clints model assumes that the Moons rotation rate can vary to match its orbital rate to keep it on track”.
It is my understanding that both Clint and I agree that the Moon is not rotating about a local axis.
We can’t compare the Moon’s motion or momentum to the locomotive on the track because the loco is self-powered and subject to friction the Moon does not experience. The loco on the track is only to demonstrate Clint’s good point that the front side of the Moon always faces down its track, the orbit.
The Moon does not have to speed up or slow down, its orbit is a balancing act between its constant linear momentum and gravity. As I demonstrated, gravity is not constant throughout the entire orbit, even though its pretty close. As the gravitational force weakens slightly it allows the Moon’s momentum to have a greater effect, therefore the Moon moves farther during that time by elongating the orbit.
If the Moon has a constant velocity, and for reasons that don’t make sense on the surface, it is allowed to move farther, then its average speed increases without its velocity changing.
On the surface, we have opposing forces like friction and air resistance acting, however, the Moon is in a friction-less environment and its motion is governed only by a balance between its linear momentum and gravity. If gravity is reduced slightly, that tilts the balance in favour of the Moon’s momentum and it can move farther while still being redirected into an orbit.
At the surface, s = vt hold (s = distance). Therefore v = s/t. This v is actually speed, not a vector quantity and is not related to v, the vector quantity representing the Moon’s linear velocity. Although it seems unlikely based on our surface experience, the Moon’s linear velocity can remain constant while the distance it covers can change. That’s why it is often claimed that the Moon’s SPEED varies during its orbit.
*****************
No. Physics says it cannot do that.
***
Just showed it can.
There are two paradigms to consider:
1. The earth is the center of the universe and all things revolve around the earth. In this paradigm it makes sense that the moon does not rotate about its axis. Ball on string works in this paradigm. The science has long since moved past this paradigm.
2. The sun is the center of the solar system and all things in the solar system orbit around the sun. In this paradigm its easy to see the moon rotates about its axis with respect to the sun.
Any science literature discussing the movement of the moon through the heavens recognizes that the moon revolves on its axis once per apparent orbit around the earth. The apparent orbit is not circular so comparisons to ball on string do not apply.
Ball on string does not work. There are three balls all connected to each other by a string that changes in length depending on the locations of the balls with respect to one another. Further the orbits of the moon and the earth are generally elliptical which only adds further complications that Kepler solved.
The arguments just get more and more desperate and ridiculous.
Braindead Ken is still trying to beat down that straw man. None of the cult idiots can face reality. The ball-on-a-string is ONLY a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. It is NOT, and never intended to be, an exact model of lunar motion.
But, being braindead, they will try this straw man again.
They can’t face reality. They have to pervert it to support the cult.
“The ball-on-a-string is ONLY a model of ‘orbital motion without axial rotation'”
The ball-on-a-string is ONLY a model of the ball-on-a-string.
‘orbital motion without axial rotation’ is the MOTR.
Pup and Kiddo lost a soul.
That train is still on time, oh the Dragon Moon cranks’ soul is on the line…
I begin to understand why it is almost impossible to change someone’s mind once they are brainwashed into believing the climate change claptrap.
Essentially the climate noob is unable to think objectively about information that is contrary to their ill-founded beliefs.
–I begin to understand why it is almost impossible to change someone’s mind once they are brainwashed into believing the climate change claptrap.–
Do want you want to change someone’s mind about “climate change claptrap”
I think I could have some “climate change claptrap” that I would like someone to change my mind about.
I think Venus at Earth distance from the sun, would be colder than the presently cold Earth.
It’s sound like claptrap doesn’t it?
It sounds like reverse of crazy idea that Earth could become like Venus, but more crazy because it’s sort of like saying Earth could become hotter than Venus.
Sure maybe some people could agree Venus might get a little cooler at Earth distance from the Sun. But colder than Earth seems wildly claptrap.
Anyhow, I avoid like the plague, changing people’s religious views, and obviously, climate change is a religious view.
Actually I very long list of things I wish someone would change my mind about. But I would guess this Venus one is the craziness
one of all the wild ideas.
I am going start with the least I can say:
Venus emits, apparently 160 watts per square meter {as an average global thing].
A source:
“At the top of the atmosphere, the cloudy middle atmosphere radiates around 160.1 W m−2 to space, supplemented by just 0.6 W m−2 that is emitted from the deep atmosphere and surface and is transmitted via the narrow spectral window regions in the infrared.”
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/qj.2704#qj2704-sec-0010-title
And how much would Venus emit at Earth distance from the Sun?
Ken
” unable to think objectively about information that is contrary to their ill-founded beliefs. ”
That seems to be valid for other things as well, doesn’t it?
If Venus were moved to Earth orbit and maintained its 70% albedo it would take up and emits 102W/m^2 compared to Earth’s 240W/m^2.
Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King’s command make it round? And if it is round, will the King’s command flatten it?
― Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons
Opinions do not necessarily reflect reality. Once an opinion is formed it can be impossible to change.(Consider how much effort flat-earthers expend defending their position).
Investigators such as detectives, air crash investigators, scietists and judges are trained to put aside their personal opinions and go by the evidence only.
It’s extremely difficult!
Gbaikie
Venus receives a higher intensity of sunlight than Earth, but reflects 70% instead of 30%. This is why its energy budget takes up and radiates 160W/m^2 instead of Earth’s 240W/m^2.
The surface temperature is measured by landers to be around 400C, which suggests that the amount of energy the planet exchanges does not correalate well with its surface temperature.
In the case of Venus the major contributor to the high temperature is considered to be the presence of atmosphere with 95% CO2 at 70 bar.This creates a greenhouse effect much more powerful than that of the Earth.
Ent believes in the “energy budget” nonsense: “…instead of Earth’s 240W/m^2.”
Ent, do you realize your cult STILL has not found that “real 255K surface”? It’s almost as if it’s not really “real”, huh?
There are those that understand basic physics that know about the real earthen 255K surface being measured; just not Clint R despite all the clues provided to Clint. Fun to watch Clint admit not knowing.
Wow, Braindead4 responded in 13 minutes! He wasn’t even commenting, just lurking. He must lurk 24/7, hoping for a chance to pervert reality.
He’s still hiding his “real 255K surface”. I suspect he has it hidden with Moon’s axial rotation. We can’t see either one….
–Entropic man says:
November 14, 2021 at 4:20 AM
If Venus were moved to Earth orbit and maintained its 70% albedo it would take up and emits 102W/m^2 compared to Earth’s 240W/m^2.–
So, Venus would cool by about 58 W, until it got cooler.
Say one had race, Earth cools by additional 58 W and Venus cools 58 W.
Which gets colder the fastest?
The race will be Venus at Earth L-3 {opposite side of sun from Earth and at Earth same distance from the Sun}.
Earth cools my some mysterious force causing loses 58 W more or blocks 58 watts from being absorbed by Earth.
Your chose of either one, and whatever factor suits you best.
Or we do the easiest way, put solar shade at Venus L-1 which blocks
the Sunlight reaching Venus so equal to sunlight reaching Earth
{solar shade could be many things, a bit more dust in the L-1, a lot humans living in L-1 and they have solar panel making vast amount electrical power, but like dust, it blocks the sunlight}
And same thing could happen with Earth- intense fear of Earth getting warming, could pay someone to import a lot of space dust to Earth L-1, or billion of people could living in Earth L-1 and getting solar energy by choosing to put solar panels to block Earth’s sunlight {could avoid doing this {easily} but Earthling want to be colder {for whatever reason}.
Btw, I have ideas about how to make Earth emit 58 watts less.
And costs less than 1 trillion dollars.
And it make earth in the short term {1000 years} cooler but actually make Earth warmer in terms of avoiding the next glaciation period.
Could require about 10 years to ramp it up.
I posted such ideas, here before. But not vaguely as crazy idea as Venus being much colder than Earth at Earth distance.
But let stick to most crazy thing.
I just saying there are a lot ways to do it.
But one just pick an unrealistic or magical- as Earth just has more clouds or something. But adding acid clouds to earth to be “like venus” would not work. Venus is very, very dry world- so it can have it’s acid clouds {which btw are a warming effect for Venus at Venus distance from the sun and still would be a bit of warming effect at earth distance {for Venus} and would eventually rain out.
Clint R 2:13pm again admits Clint can’t find the measured 255K earthen surface despite clues provided by various commenters. Truly fun to watch Clint admit he is unaware of climate basics so keep us entertained Clint.
Braindead4, have you noticed everything you claim appears to be “hiding”?
You claim something, but you never can produce what you claimed.
It’s almost as if you’ve got NOTHING, huh?
ken…”There are three balls all connected to each other by a string that changes in length depending on the locations of the balls with respect to one another”.
***
This 3 body problem, (Sun, Earth, Moon) is far more complex than three balls on a string. The gravitational force of the Sun on the Moon is variable, depending on the position of the Moon in its orbit. When the Moon is on the far side of the Earth, both solar gravity and terrestrial gravity are operating on it yet when the Moon is between the Earth and the Sun, terrestrial gravity is subtracting from solar gravity. Neither case changes the orbit of the Moon around the Earth.
The thing being missed here is the weakness of the gravitational fields of the Sun and the Earth. Neither are capable of accelerating the Moon from its current orbit, or even moving it toward either body. Yet, the gravitational force of Earth is enough to divert the Moon’s linear velocity into an elliptical orbit, whereas the Sun’s gravitational field has no effect.
The drawing you supplied from wiki about the Moon having a spiral orbit around he Sun is a mathematical abstraction and has nothing to do with physical reality.
Please try to focus on this. The Moon has absolutely no momentum around the Sun. If Earth’s gravity was turned off, the Moon would not continue in the same orbital path around the Sun. It would shoot off in a tangential direction depending on the direction it was facing when gravity was turned off.
The only momentum available to the Moon is a linear momentum and that applies to Earth as well. However, Earth’s linear momentum is in a direction tangential to the Earth-Sun orbit whereas the Moon’s linear momentum is in a direction tangential to the Moon-Earth orbit.
This is basic kinematics and you cannot get around it using a mathematical abstraction.
The truth is that solar gravity is not strong enough to pull any of the planet’s out of their current orbits nor is it strong enough to affect the lunar orbit.
Solar gravity dictates that anything that orbits it is in a fixed path. The Moon orbits the Earth/Moon barycenter which in turn orbits the Sun. Therefore the Moon orbits the Sun (via extension).
The moons path around the Sun is as demonstrated in the diagram above.
An interesting factoid about the moon’s transit around the sun is that its always concave toward the sun. If the earth were to disappear the moon would continue to orbit around the sun. It would continue to rotate around its axis too.
Three sentences, three nonsense “factoids”. At least Ken is consistent.
A sinusoidal wave is NOT “always concave”!
If Earth were to disappear, Moon would not have enough linear velocity to establish an orbit around Sun, or to escape Sun. It would be pulled into Sun.
Moon is NOT rotating, so it would continue NOT rotating, as it got pulled into Sun.
Moon orbits Earth, that keeps it “alive”. Without Earth, it would fall to Sun. That debunks the “scalloped orbit” nonsense.
I predict the “scalloped orbit” nonsense will not go away. Once nonsense like this gets started, the cult finds ways to maintain it.
“If Earth were to disappear, Moon would not have enough linear velocity to establish an orbit around Sun, or to escape Sun. It would be pulled into Sun”
Wrong as always as the diagram above shows all to clearly. You clearly have no idea about orbital mechanics.
Thanks for proving me right, RLH.
“I predict the ‘scalloped orbit’ nonsense will not go away. Once nonsense like this gets started, the cult finds ways to maintain it.”
RLH, the fascinating thing here is the Clint recognizes that the earth and moon have the same centripetal acceleration due to the sun. He even congratulated me for knowing this too. And they are the same distance from the sun. And moving at the same speed around the sun.
The same a = v^2/R applies to both. Everything is the same.
And yet while earth circles around the sun with this a, v, and r, he thinks the moon would ‘fall to the sun’ with the same a, v, and r.
Well no Folkerts, everything is NOT the same.
Moon has a linear velocity vector that is different from Earth’s. So, it depends on where Moon is in its orbit when Earth disappears. If Moon is moving toward Sun, then the resultant would be to move Moon to a lower orbit. And guess what, the resultant vector does not go away. Moon keeps moving to lower and lower orbits.
You were fooled by the “scalloped orbit” nonsense, which was its purpose. It’s just like when you try to fool people with your math that results in ice cubes boiling water.
It’s the same kind of perversion of physics.
“Moon has a linear velocity vector that is different from Earths.”
The speed of the moon around the earth is about 1 km/s.
The speed of the earth around the sun is about 30 km/s.
So the speed of the moon around the sun is between 29 and 31 km/s.
So yeah, the moon could be slightly faster or slightly slower.
* if the earth ‘disappeared’ when the moon was going 29 km/s, the orbit would be slightly smaller than the earths current orbit.
* if the earth ‘disappeared’ when the moon was going 31 km/s, the orbit would be slightly larger than the earths current orbit.
But in either case the moon would orbit the sun, and orbit ALMOST the same distance from the sun as the earth does now.
See Folkerts, I never know if you’re ignorant, or purposely perverting physics. I mentioned “vectors” in my comment, and you even quoted me. But YOU never mentioned vectors. You only used “speed”, omitting “direction”.
Are you ignorant of vectors, or are you bent on perverting reality?
For those who don’t know which way the earth and moon are moving, and don’t know how to add vectors:
The vector velocity of the earth around the sun is always “forward” in the orbital direction, with a magnitude of about 30 km/s. The vector will be slightly inward or slight outward depending on the location of the earth along the elliptical orbit.
The vector velocity of the moon around the earth is in any direction in the plane of the moon’s orbit, with a magnitude of about 1 km/s.
The net vector velocity of the moon is found by vector addition of these two. When you add a vector of magnitude 1 to a vector of magnitude 30, the resulting magnitude is between 29 and 31.
The net result is that the the velocity vector of the moon is within a few % of the velocity vector of the earth. If the earth ‘disappeared’, the moon would continue moving at the same velocity (ie 29-31 km/s, mostly forward) It would continue orbiting the sun with an orbit only a few % different than the current orbit. It would remain ~ 1 AU from the sun. It would still take ~ 1 year to orbit.
The moon would NOT stop and fall into the sun!
“If Earth were to disappear, Moon would not have enough linear velocity to establish an orbit around Sun, or to escape Sun. It would be pulled into Sun.”
Yep, Clint has truly embraced his moron persona, by continually declaring moronic things.
As a troll, he has no incentive to tell the truth or even make sense.
It seems to satisfy his desperate need for attention– even well-deserved ridicule satisfies his need.
I would suggest to all, to try to stop feeding this dimwit-troll.
You don’t know how vectors add, Folkerts! Let’s see if you can learn.
Instantaneous vectors:
30@0°, tangent to Earth orbit
1@90°, toward Sun
Questions:
1. What is the resultant of the two vectors?
2. Is the resultant inside Earth orbit?
3. Does that mean Moon will move toward Sun?
Answers:
1. Magnitude — sqrt((30^2 + 1^2)) = sqrt(901) = 30.02
Direction — arctan(1/30) = 2°
2. Yes, 2°
3. Yes
Distractions, irrelevancies, obfuscations, and nitpicks mean you can’t learn. If you can’t learn, you’re braindead.
We went from
“If Earth were to disappear, Moon would not have enough linear velocity to establish an orbit around Sun”
To now acknowledging that is of course, not true!
In fact it would still be in an orbit around the sun.
Just slightly lower or slightly higher as Tim stated.
And yet he blames Tim and others for HIS errors.
Nate, have you decided what you’re going to get Folkerts for Christmas?
I’m sure it will be something really romantic….
Perhaps your new book, Dragon Crank Science is about Science?
Clint says: “If Earth were to disappear, Moon would not have enough linear velocity to establish an orbit around Sun, or to escape Sun. It would be pulled into Sun.”
He supports this with: “And guess what, the resultant vector does not go away. Moon keeps moving to lower and lower orbits.” (Ie the moon spirals into the sun as the orbit get lower and lower.)
When he gets schooled and realizes he is wrong, me tries to switch to “3. Does that mean Moon will move toward Sun? Yes.” He hopes people forget what he had said a few lines earlier.
Yes, the moon will– for half an orbit — move *slightly* closer to the sun. And then farther away for half an orbit. Repeat indefinitely, in a steady orbit very nearly the same as earth’s current orbit. What is des NOT do is to “keep[s] moving to lower and lower orbits”. What is does NOT do is to get “pulled into Sun”.
Saying the orbit will stay ‘the same’ is ~95% correct.
Saying the moon will ‘get pulled into the sun’ is ~0% correct.
Folkerts, there is no evidence you learned how to add vectors. But, you’re pretty good at twisting, distorting, mis-interpreting my words.
So let me correct you one more time:
Saying the orbit will stay the same is ~0.3% correct.
Saying the moon will ‘get pulled into the sun’ is ~49.85% correct.
Saying the moon will move to a higher orbit is ~49.85% correct.
“Without Earth, it [the moon] would fall to Sun.”
0% Correct. This blanket statement is simply false.
You try to obfuscate by:
1) specifically assuming the moon was moving toward the sun when the earth disappeared — something not part of your original statement.
2) changing from “fall to the sun” or “keeps moving to lower and lower orbits” to simply ‘moving SLIGHTLY TOWARD the sun.’
I’m not the one running away from the words I wrote!
You’re just rambling, Folkerts.
I didn’t obfuscate anything.
My first comment was to oppose the false belief that Moon would continue as if nothing had happened. When you burst in, I tried to clarify my comment. You were unable to understand. I I even showed you how to add vectors:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-1002348
But, you still couldn’t understand.
Now you’re just babbling incoherently, trying to lash out because you can’t understand basic physics. And you’ve got your trolls trying to protect you, by falling on their faces.
That’s why this is so much fun.
“You were unable to understand. I I even showed you how to add vectors:”
OMG.
Clint is so delusional that he thinks he has schooled a physicist on how to add vectors!
Maybe next he will explain to his plumber which wrench to use.
Or he could teach Tom Brady how not to throw the ball to the opposing team.
Wrong again, delusional troll Nate.
I’m not sure I made much progress with Folkerts at all. Here was what I said about it: “Folkerts, there is no evidence you learned how to add vectors.”
Yep, defintely delusional, and the poster child for Dunning Kruger syndrome.
Give generously to save the morons from themselves.
Stratospheric intrusion brings frost to northern Alabama and Georgia.
https://i.ibb.co/yNzgy4Q/mimictpw-namer-latest.gif
ken…”2. The sun is the center of the solar system and all things in the solar system orbit around the sun. In this paradigm its easy to see the moon rotates about its axis with respect to the sun”.
***
Have you got anything against cracking a book on kinematics and trying to understand it? In order for a body to rotate about an axis, it must have angular momentum about that axis. If the Moon has no angular momentum about its axis wrt the Earth, it has no angular momentum period.
The spinners have tried this argument using reference frames, inferring that a body with no angular momentum can suddenly acquire it by changing perspectives.
Visualize yourself sitting on a bike waiting for the light to change, with the brakes fully applied. The front wheels are stopped, they have zero angular momentum. Do you think you can give them angular momentum about the wheel axles by viewing them from Mars, or from a star?
There can be no angular momentum on the wheels, from any perspective, till you let the brakes off and roll the wheels. By the same token, there can be no angular momentum on the Moon till the near-side stops pointing constantly at the Earth.
That was an argument presented by NASA. They pretty well acknowledged the Moon is not rotating about its axis wrt to Earth then they claimed it was rotating wrt the stars.
They have obviously mistaken a change in orientation of the near-face of the Moon for rotation about its axis. At no time does it rotate about its axis, it’s exactly like the bicycle wheel, with brakes applied, when you’re stop at a light, with your foot on the ground.
Now, if you got off the bike, put both brakes on, and slid both tires along the ground, that would be rectilinear translation without rotation. That’s what the Moon does except it does it on a curved surface.
GR is wrong as usual.
” Do you think you can give them angular momentum about the wheel axles by viewing them from Mars, or from a star? ”
Typical dumbass pseudoarguing.
No astronomer on Earth would ever come to the completely stoopid idea to speak about viewing anything ‘from a star’, let alone ‘from Mars’ because that is even more stoopid.
Astronomers observe motions of celestial bodies with respect to a fixed point in space, e.g. the same star, during series of observations: they do that because they then become able observe such motions independently of Earth’s own motion itself.
*
Even Newton has understood that ‘the diurnal motion of planets is uniform’.
He wrote that (mentioning Jupiter, Mars, Venus, Earth, the Sun and… the Moon) in the very last revision of his Principia, which appeared in 1726, one year before he died, in 1727 (March 31).
For him – a physicist mathematician and astronomer in one person – it was evident that all celestial bodies not only orbit but also rotate about an internal axis.
*
Stubborn dumbasses don’t understand such things.
That’s why they call scientists ‘cheating SOB’s, ‘astrologer’s and the like.
Dissimulate, distort, misrepresent, discredit, denigrate and lie: that is all they are able to.
“rectilinear translation without rotation”
is just that. No rotation of any sort wrt the fixed stars.
Gordo wrote:
No, Gordo, you are the one who needs to “crack a book” on dynamics. As I tried to explain to pups, rotational momentum is a 3-D vector quantity and remains the same in any inertial reference frame, absent any applied torque. It’s not about “perspective”, it’s physics.
Swanson is a proven liar. I recommend people scroll up from that comment, and read through what the preceding discussion was actually about. Swanson has nothing to “explain” to me that I do not already understand.
pups continues to refuse to address the physics of rotating bodies, fixating instead on my previous statement with a minor problem. The Moon rotates once an orbit.
Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis. I get the impression Swanson agrees unconditionally with that statement. Yet, from the inertial reference frame, you could falsely conclude that it is rotating on its own axis, because it would be "changing direction" wrt the fixed stars, as it rotates about the Earth’s axis. It’s as simple as that. Using the inertial reference frame can lead you to false conclusions wrt discerning axes of rotation.
Mt. Everest rotates about the Earth’s axis, and not on its own axis. Mt. Everest has one axis of rotation, and that axis of rotation is the Earth’s axis.
Those that understand rotation will get it.
Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis wrt Earth.
Ball4, please stop trolling.
pups still can’t understand that Mt. Everest can not rotate around an internal axis since it’s part of the Earth. pups doesn’t understand moments of inertia, especially principal moments of inertia, and the physics of rotation of a (nearly) symmetrical body, such as the Earth or the Moon.
"pups [?] still can’t understand that Mt. Everest can not rotate around an internal axis since it’s part of the Earth"
Swanson still can’t understand that from the inertial reference frame, you could falsely conclude that it is rotating around an internal axis, because it would be "changing direction" wrt the fixed stars, as it rotates about the Earth’s axis. Even though "it can not rotate around an internal axis since it’s part of the Earth". Using the inertial reference frame can lead you to false conclusions wrt discerning axes of rotation.
No DREMT, using a non-accelerating inertial reference frame can lead you to true conclusions wrt discerning axes of rotation while using an accelerated ref. frame can lead to false non-inertial conclusions.
Ball4 is claiming that the "true conclusion" for Mt. Everest is that it is rotating on its own axis. This is why I ask him to please stop trolling.
Ball4 is claiming that the “true conclusion” for Mt. Everest is that it is rotating on its own axis wrt to inertial frame.
DREMT has yet to master relativity and use my written words.
…and, that is why you have to be careful. As we can see, using the inertial reference frame can lead you to false conclusions wrt discerning axes of rotation.
pups, I agree that Mt. Everest is rotating, but it is not rotating around an “internal” axis. As part of the Earth, it will appear to rotate, but the axis of rotation will be one thru the CoM of the Earth.
You disagree with Ball4, and agree with me. Understood.
Ball4: Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis wrt Earth.
E. Swanson: (Mt. Everest) is not rotating around an “internal” axis.
DREMT: (E. Swanson words) disagree with Ball4.
No. It is DREMT that is wrong by using his own words instead of others words. Don’t use DREMT words for them; use their words.
Swanson wrote:
"Mt. Everest is rotating, but it is not rotating around an “internal” axis. As part of the Earth, it will appear to rotate, but the axis of rotation will be one thru the CoM of the Earth."
I agree with that completely. In fact, if Swanson had read my comments more carefully, he would already be aware of that.
Here is what I wrote, at 12:52 PM:
"Mt. Everest rotates about the Earth’s axis, and not on its own axis. Mt. Everest has one axis of rotation, and that axis of rotation is the Earth’s axis."
Perhaps now Swanson will be able to understand the point that I have been patiently trying to explain to him, for some time.
Now notice, DREMT, that Mt. Everest keeps the same face towards rest of Earth because:
Ball4: Mt. Everest is not rotating on its own axis wrt Earth.
just like keeping man in moon face towards Earth means our moon is also not rotating on its own axis wrt Earth.
Notice that Ball4 is a troll.
I’ve never trolled.
I’ve corrected DREMT’s physics repeatedly.
So why don’t you “correct” Swanson’s statement:
“pups, I agree that Mt. Everest is rotating, but it is not rotating around an “internal” axis. As part of the Earth, it will appear to rotate, but the axis of rotation will be one thru the CoM of the Earth.”
Only physically incorrect comments need correcting.
I’m glad you agree that it is not physically incorrect, then. See, you can learn.
E. Swanson comment doesn’t need correcting, some of DREMT’s comments need correcting. Glad DREMT agrees. Try harder to master relativity DREMT.
Mt. Everest rotates about the Earth’s axis, and not on its own axis. Mt. Everest has one axis of rotation, and that axis of rotation is the Earth’s axis.
Mt. Everest rotates about the Earth’s axis, and not on its own axis wrt to Earth. Mt. Everest has one axis of rotation wrt Earth, and that axis of rotation is the Earth’s axis.
So why did you just add “wrt Earth” to my statement, but not to Swanson’s? Swanson said “Mt. Everest is rotating, but it is not rotating around an “internal” axis”. You didn’t feel the need to add any “wrt…”? You are proving that you are just a troll.
For precision in relativity since DREMT hasn’t mastered relativity yet. E. Swanson’s comment doesn’t need it. Glad you agree.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-1002680
#2
Ball4, please stop trolling.
DREMT melts down again & begins chasing tail instead of mastering relativity. Keep up the fine entertainment DREMT. Leave the physics to E. Swanson.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-1002649
#3
Ball4, please stop trolling.
Kiddo is a proven troll.
He pretended for years to be Roy’s moderator.
He keeps stalking people while whining about being persecuted.
He has no idea what Flop really demonstrated.
Yet he’s the best Moon Dragon cranks got.
“ Kiddo is a proven troll.”
Look who’s talking.
Here’s where you’re wrong, Pozzo:
I’m a troll slayer.
You’ll never be able to write a good book if you keep making stupid mistakes like that.
Portillo, don’t feed the troll.
Kennui,
You have very selective tastes. Which means you might like:
DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abd4201
I’m just getting started.
GR is wrong as usual.
rlh…”GR is wrong as usual”.
***
And as usual, Richard has no scientific comment to back up his incorrect opinion.
The fact that you are wrong is just that. A fact. Your science is poor to non-existent at best.
Tomorrow, an even stronger stratospheric wave will reach the Great Lakes, with stronger frost.
https://i.ibb.co/LrLN7S5/gfs-o3mr-150-NA-f048.png
This time ren is exceptionally ‘plain right’.
From wetteronline.de:
Weather phenomenon: lake effect
USA and Canada: Heavy snowfalls
A storm brings heavy snowfall to the northern parts of the United States and southern Canada over the weekend. But it is not only the storm that causes violent flakes, the so-called lake effect also plays a major role.
With this weather phenomenon, a strong, cold east wind covers a long way over the still warm Great Lakes of the USA and absorbs plenty of water vapor in the process.
At the same time, there is icy cold air in the higher layers of the air. Cumulus clouds form, which expand into snow showers and reach the cities with an onshore wind. They then move far inland and often leave plenty of snow behind in a short time.
binny…”A storm brings heavy snowfall to the northern parts of the United States and southern Canada”
***
The southern part of Canada and the northern part of the US covers over 3000 miles. There can be dramatic differences between the weather on the eastern part of that area and the western part.
Here on the most westerly side of southern part of Canada, in Vancouver, there is no sign of snow. Maybe you could advise wetteronline.de.
You are such a dumb ass, Robertson…
Gordo might be revealing the conceptual difficulty with the following conditional:
This presumes that tidal locking does not imply the effect of a force activated by angular momentum, in other words that the Man on the Moon indicates that the Moon is inert or always moves completely straight. That begs the question: if Moon Dragon cranks are right, then of course they’re right.
Gordo’s contention is also false, since the synchronization of the Moon’s orbit with its spin, not unlike its atomic counterpart, involves angular momentum:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_of_the_Moon#Properties
I suppose we could distinguish spin and orbital angular momenta, but that does not matter much.
There can be no progress for the Moon Dragon cranks till they stop begging constantly their physics-free position.
willard…”The variance in the Moon’s orbital distance corresponds with changes in its tangential and angular speeds, as stated in Kepler’s second law”.
***
Kepler’s 2nd law says nothing about tangential velocity (not speed). Speed is a scalar quantity with no direction whereas the the Moon’s tangential velocity has a definite direction vector.
Kepler II states roughly that a radial line carves out equal areas in equal times. My explanation coincides with that. I even explained why. There is a change in speed for the Moon but it always maintains it’s constant linear velocity. The reason for the change in speed is that speed is a simply average of distance covered per unit time.
> The Kepler Law
C’mon, Gordo. Read the relevant part:
There’s such a thing as a mean angular movement.
Think about what this implies.
Go rant elsewhere.
Gaseous Planets Jupiter and Neptune T1bar mean temperatures 165 K and 72 K comparison
Jupiter’s atmosphere composition 89% ± 2,0% H₂, 10% ± 2,0% He, 0,3% ± 0,1% CH₄.
Neptune’s atmosphere composition 80% ± 3,2% H₂, 19% ± 3,2% He, 1,5% ± 0,5% CH₄.
As we can see, Jupiter and Neptune have close atmospheric compositions.
All data are satellites measurements.
R – semi-major axis in AU (Astronomical Units)
a – planet’s average albedo
N – rotations /day – planet’s spin
T1bar – planet atmosphere at 1 bar average temperature in Kelvin
Planet.…Jupiter….Neptune
R………….5,2044….30,33
1/R²…….0,0369……0,001087
a……………0,503….0,290
1-a………..0,497……0,710
N………….2,4181….1,4896 (rotations/day)
T 1 bar……165 K……72 K
Coeff…0,388880……0,170881
Comparison coefficient calculation
[ (1-a) (1/R²) (N)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴
Jupiter
[ (1-a) (1/R²) (N)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
= [ 0,497*0,0369*(2,4181)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
= ( 0,497*0,0369*1,2470 ]¹∕ ⁴ = ( 0,0228691 )¹∕ ⁴ =
= 0,388880
Neptune
[ (1-a) (1/R²) (N)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
= [ 0,710*0,001087*(1,4896)¹∕ ⁴ ]¹∕ ⁴ =
= ( 0,710*0,001087*1,1048 )¹∕ ⁴ = ( 0,000852651 )¹∕ ⁴ =
= 0,170881
Let’s compare
Jupiter coeff. / Neptune coeff. =
= 0,388880 /0,170881 = 2,2757
T1bar.jupiter /T1bar.neptune = 165 /72 = 2,2917
Conclusion:
Gaseous Giants Jupiter and Neptune average T1bar temperatures relate (everything else equals) as their rotational spins (N) sixteenth root.
It is at 1bar layer the satellite measured average temperatures comparison.
The cp term for Gasses Giants is absent, because we do the comparison not for planets’ solid surfaces temperature, but for the layers with a close atmospheric composition at the same 1bar pressure.
Nevertheless the “Planet Rotational Warming Phenomenon” is present and observed…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Just damn!
Christos,
Stop peeing in B4’s Cheerios.
Just a brief repeat of a comment made long ago.
Yes, rotation rate matters. Everyone knows this. Faster spin = more uniform temperature = higher average temperature.
But ‘the 16th root’ is just curve fitting that only works for a range of intermediate values. Specifically, ‘the 16th root’ would predict a temperature of 0K for a non-rotating (relative to the sun) planet, and an arbitrarily high temperature for a rapidly rotating planet. (specifically, the temperature could rise above the blackboady temperature).
Thus this cannot be a ‘fundamental’ equation.
tim…”the 16th root is just curve fitting that only works for a range of intermediate values”.
***
Nice red-herring, Tim. How to do curve-fit when you are creating the curve?
> Nice red-herring
You keep using that expression, Gordo.
It does not mean what you make it mean:
https://philpapers.org/rec/WALIET
Gordon,
The equation has no basis in theory.
The equation fails for very fast or very slow rotations.
It is a decent empirical formula apparently for a moderate range of rotation rates, but the 15th or 17th root would work just as well. I am sure some polynomial curves or exponential curves could work well too.
I’m not saying it isn’t an interesting proposal, but it is curve fitting.
Tim,
From Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body
“A black body or blackbody is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence…
A black body in thermal equilibrium (that is, at a constant temperature) emits electromagnetic black-body radiation. The radiation is emitted according to Planck’s law, meaning that it has a spectrum that is determined by the temperature alone (see figure at right), not by the body’s shape or composition.
An ideal black body in thermal equilibrium has two main properties:[2]
It is an ideal emitter: at every frequency, it emits as much or more thermal radiative energy as any other body at the same temperature.
It is a diffuse emitter: measured per unit area perpendicular to the direction, the energy is radiated isotropically, independent of direction.
……..
In astronomy, the radiation from stars and planets is sometimes characterized in terms of an effective temperature, the temperature of a black body that would emit the same total flux of electromagnetic energy.”
………
The blackbody initial definition (when not being properly “weighted”) creates a great confusion and a great misunderstanding:
The “blackbody is an idealized physical body that absorbs all incident electromagnetic radiation, regardless of frequency or angle of incidence…”
Now, Tim, have you ever spotted in the theory of the blackbody emission equations (in their derivations) any mention of blackbody being warmed by the incident radiative EM energy?
Or, to say differently, have you seen any quantitative approach? Is there any theoretical derivation that blackbody emission “works” WISE-VERSA?
To be more precise, does theory claim that blackbody emitting at Tx^4 may warm another blackbody at the same Tx ?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Now, Tim, have you ever spotted in the theory of the blackbody emission equations (in their derivations) any mention of blackbody being warmed by the incident radiative EM energy?”
Theory says the energy of the incident radiation is perfectly absorbed by a black body.
Theory says energy is conserved.
Therefore the energy is added to the object.
In principle I suppose the absorbed energy could cause chemical reactions or generate electricity for a while. But practically, the energy is absorbed and becomes thermal energy. The energy warms the object. Anyone who has ever set a black object out in the sunlight knows that incident radiation warms objects (even if they are not perfect absorbers!)
“.. not by the body’s shape…”
Good example of a wiki failure – to be accurate in physics you need to consult the original ref.s at the bottom instead (ref. 1), this shape issue is a trap that has caught some big fish.
Prof. Planck: “Throughout the following discussion it will be assumed that the linear dimensions of all parts of space considered, as well as the radii of curvature of all surfaces under consideration, are large compared with the wave lengths of the rays considered.”
Planck’s law does not apply to objects with a shape such that they radiate toward themselves (negative radii) or an object with a diameter on the order of the wavelength of interest otherwise diffraction becomes important.
Tim
“Theory says the energy of the incident radiation is perfectly absorbed by a black body.”
I think, it is said in the blackbody definition, for excluding any incident radiation s reflection to interfere with the blackbody s actual emission.
From Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body
“An approximate realization of a black surface is a hole in the wall of a large insulated enclosure (an oven, for example). Any light entering the hole is reflected or absorbed at the internal surfaces of the body and is unlikely to re-emerge, making the hole a nearly perfect absorber.”
“Suppose the cavity is held at a fixed temperature T and the radiation trapped inside the enclosure is at thermal equilibrium with the enclosure. The hole in the enclosure will allow some radiation to escape. If the hole is small, radiation passing in and out of the hole has negligible effect upon the equilibrium of the radiation inside the cavity. This escaping radiation will approximate black-body radiation that exhibits a distribution in energy characteristic of the temperature T and does not depend upon the properties of the cavity or the hole, at least for wavelengths smaller than the size of the hole.”
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, I am not quite sure what point you are trying to make.
A blackbody does not reflect any incident light, so there is no reflection to ‘interfere with the blackbody’s actual emission’.
Tim, what I would like to say is that in blackbody theory there is not the blackbody being heated by the radiation mentioned.
This theme has not been developed yet.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
The theme of heating by radiation is quite well developed!
Conduction, convection, and radiation: the three standard forms of heat transfer in thermodynamics.
With blackbody radiation, the calculations are especially simple, since all of the incident radiation is absorbed (and the outgoing radiation is also easily calculated).
Tim
“Yes, rotation rate matters. Everyone knows this. Faster spin = more uniform temperature = higher average temperature.
But the 16th root is just curve fitting that only works for a range of intermediate values. Specifically, the 16th root would predict a temperature of 0K for a non-rotating (relative to the sun) planet, and an arbitrarily high temperature for a rapidly rotating planet. (specifically, the temperature could rise above the blackbody temperature).”
“…(specifically, the temperature could rise above the blackbody temperature).”
There are limitations for the use of the (N*cp) product. Planet average (mean) surface temperature cannot reach temperatures above a certain limit. Planet average temperature should be significantly lower than the insulated blackbody plate surface perpendicularly oriented to the incident solar rays.
For the Earth, which blackbody temperature you refer to:
1). Te = [ (1-a) S / 4 σ ]∕ ⁴
The 255 K
or
2). T = [(1 -0,306)1361 W/m /σ ]∕ ⁴ = (944,53 W/m /σ)∕ ⁴
The 359 K ?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, I have a few problems with your theory, but here is one fundamental problem.
An object with properties like the earth spinning once per day is calculated to be 288 K.
An object with properties like the earth but spinning once per hour would be 288*(24^1/16) = 351 K.
An object with properties like the earth but spinning once per minute would be 454 K.
An object with properties like the earth but spinning once per second would be 586 K.
Sure, to spin that fast, the object might only be 10 or 20 m in radius to prevent it from flying apart. But your theory doesn’t depend on size.
Tim,
Yes, there are limitations in use of the equation.
Tmean.planet = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
When planet with Earth properties rotates twice as fast, the average surface temperature is calculated as Tmean = 300,71K.
And it is an acceptable, because it is within the range of “Planet Surface Rotational Warming Phenomenon” observations.
When rotating 10 times as fast Tmean = 332,56K.
And it is about the limits for the equation to consolidate with physics.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
–Entropic man says:
November 14, 2021 at 7:41 AM
Gbaikie
Venus receives a higher intensity of sunlight than Earth, but reflects 70% instead of 30%. This is why its energy budget takes up and radiates 160W/m^2 instead of Earth’s 240W/m^2.–
Yes. Venus get twice as much sunlight.
And if get 1/2 much sunlight, it cools by some amount.
And will over time, cool, and issue is how cool does it get?
I say, colder than a snowball Earth.
–The surface temperature is measured by landers to be around 400C, which suggests that the amount of energy the planet exchanges does not correalate well with its surface temperature.–
Of course it correlates. Unless you think Venus is not very hot because of a “greenhouse effect”.
I assuming it is- and I don’t wish discuss other kinds of possibilities at this particular point in time.
–In the case of Venus the major contributor to the high temperature is considered to be the presence of atmosphere with 95% CO2 at 70 bar. This creates a greenhouse effect much more powerful than that of the Earth.–
So do agree with the particular source I quoted which said from all this region [including your 70 bar atm} it’s .6 watts added to “cloud level” region and higher.
You can disagree, I just want know if generally agree or generally disagree.
I will quote:
“At the top of the atmosphere, the cloudy middle atmosphere radiates around 160.1 W m−2 to space, supplemented by just 0.6 W m−2 that is emitted from the deep atmosphere…”
Would you if half as much sunlight the “cloudy middle atmosphere”
will absorb less and emit less.
And also that “at 70 bar” when one is getting 1/2 much sunlight. it will much dimmer during the daytime down there?
So maybe less than .6 watts. Maybe even getting closer to heat from Earth’s geothermal energy?
{But as said we going assume Venus has less geothermal energy than Earth does. And also not considering other ways of explaining why Venus is so hot, in this particular context, other by a some kind of greenhouse effect.}
From above: “So, Venus would cool by about 58 W, until it got cooler.”
How much is this. In 24 hour period: 24 times 58 is 1,392 watts per square meter. More electrical energy than you get from solar panel- on earth surface.
Say 500 million square km or 500 million million square meters.
500 times 1,392 watts = 696,500 million million watts of heat lost
per day or 6.9 x 10^17 watts hours
In megatonne bomb energy emitted {not heat unless explode them in the ocean] and let’s explode them in ocean.
2.11017 J Yield of the Tsar Bomba, the largest nuclear weapon ever tested (50 megatons)
so about 3 tsar bombs per second in 24 hour [3600 seconds times 24
times 3 bombs = 259,200 Tsar Bomba per day.
6.9 x 10^17 watts hours = 24,840 10^17 joules an hour, in day:
596,160 10^17 joules or 5.9 10^22 joules
1 cubic km of water is 1 billion tonnes or 1 trillion kg of water
takes 4182 joule to heat to 1 C or K
4182 trillion joule per 1 C of cubic km of water:
4.18 x 10^15 joules vs 5.9 10^22 joules
4.18 x 10^15 is about 1/10 million
Earth ocean is 1.335 billion cubic kilometers
And doesn’t warm or cool earth ocean by much in one day.
But would in thousand days.
Venus atmosphere:
“Total mass of atmosphere: ~4.8 x 10^20 kg”
Specific heat of kg of CO2 is 1126 joules at 700 K
[At 500 K: 1014 joules}
4.8 times 1126 is 5.4 x 10^23 joules
Or about 10 days to cool entire atmosphere by 1 C
1000 days by 100 K
1000 days of cooling doesn’t make any liquid CO2, though it seems to make more super critical CO2, and could maybe 1/2 the height of the
cloudy middle atmosphere.
Which would add compressional heating, but I believe my number include such “heating effects” but doesn’t include any effect {if there is any, of the more super critical CO2}.
So 3 years gone and could take several more years to get close getting liquid CO2 {which is a heating effect and collapsing of Atmosphere effect. And maybe also around several years before the acid clouds disappear.
Oh, there is important aspect I didn’t mention, Venus has long day:
5,832 hours.
[If Earth had such a long day, it would also be colder.]
Venus, at Venus distance from Sun, effectively has much shorter day because the upper part of atmosphere receiving most of energy from the sunlight, “rotates” every 4 to 5 days.
So, Venus long day is a significant part of the reason why Venus would become colder than a snowball Earth.
I don’t think Venus would cool much at Earth’s orbital distance.
Take a look at her energy budget.
https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/qj.2704
The outward longwave radiation to space to space is 160W/m^2 at her present distance, perhaps 102W/m^2 in Earth’s orbit.
The surface radiation and the recirculating back radiation are 17000W/m^2. That’s a massive energy reservoir which would take a long time to drain.
Notice the reference to “energy budget”. It’s amazing how that nonsense has such a hold on the “consensus”.
It means that none of them understands physics or thermodynamics.
Flux is NOT a conserved quantity. It does NOT “balance”. A cone absorbing 900 W/m^2 at its base, with a total area 5 times its base, is emitting 180 W/m^2, at equilibrium temperature.
900 does NOT equal 180.
But 900/5 = 180
RLH, first you have to understand the basics:
The incoming flux is 900W/m^2.
The outgoing flux is 180W/m^2.
The incoming is not equal to the outgoing.
Do you understand that simple fact?
The incoming flux is 900W/m^2 on a fraction of the m^2.
The outgoing flux is 180W/m^2 on all the m^2.
It is Clint that doesn’t understand the basics: energy is conserved per m^2 and per sec.
“The incoming flux is 900W/m^2″ over a unit area.
The outgoing flux is 180W/m^2” over 5 times the area.
900 = 180 * 5.
Ball4 and RLH use the same trick. They convert to energy, by taking the area into account. Instead of admitting the fluxes don’t balance, they ignore that to protect their cult.
It’s like the old shell game. The AGW nonsense is built on tricks like this.
“That’s a massive energy reservoir which would take a long time to drain.”
Earth is in icehouse global climate, and it’s + million year thing to become Snowball or Greenhouse global climate. And Venus has far less energy reservoir than Earth.
And even with a doubling or halving of the amount of Sunlight it takes a fair amount of time to alter global climate.
One could put planet Venus into solar escape trajectory and it could stay fairly warm for decades, but planet Earth would remain warmer a lot longer than Venus.
Anyhow I am talking about climate, not weather.
But we could talk about weather.
Say there was a sky city at 60 km high elevation on Venus, staying in location near the equator.
And some people make huge solar array within 1 year period of time, in Venus L-1 and it give Venus the same amount sunlight as Earth gets.
With the normal Venus sun, and you are on a sun deck, you need shade and/or special kind of clothing as sunlight is much hotter than on earth, but air temperature is not much of a problem.
But one year later, one could wear clothes like an Earthling and your floating city is lowering in elevation.
The weather has changed a lot. And weather is changing in ways which might much harder to predict- one needs understanding global climate to help predict what is going change in the next 10 years.
One might call your elevation in Venus sky, your sea level, and the sea level and winds are going dramatically change with 1 year and continue to change within 10 year- and in decades to a century of time. You could be above the acid rain, and could fall below the acid rain- or could have more raining.
The change in rain, could be the most important weather forecast.
Clint R: Energy in has to balance energy out. Fact.
Flux is dependent on area. Larger area, larger flux, smaller area smaller flux.
That is why 900 = 180 * 5.
900W/m^2 = 180W/m^2 * 5 as you yourself said. That is what ‘per m^2’ means.
Oh, as general note regarding sky cities on Venus and having
a Venus sun {rather than 1 AU sun} being at equator has disadvantages or being in sky nearer the polar region is probably better.
But if get sunlight like 1 AU sunlight, the advantage/disadvantage mix, could alter to favor being in the equator.
One factor is might have better weather if near the equator.
Or weather near polar region could be a lot more dangerous- and could be somewhat dangerous at present Venus.
But would need details global climate to measure the cost analysis of equator vs polar.
With Earth, warmer Earth make area near polar region, better.
Though on Earth we don’t live in the sky.
We are so primitive we don’t even live on the ocean {the ocean is a lot easier/economical than the sky}.
Anyhow, if we were in greenhouse climate rather than Icehouse climate {not going to happen, even if we wanted to to happen, within centuries even allowing an increase human capabilities, that provide that choice} the warmer Earth global climate could make easier to live in near on in polar regions in the sky.
One thing is solar energy is much better, 3 km or more up.
[And better +50 km up near polar regions of Venus. More sunlight
and shorter days- and other factors {shorter transmission distance to get 100% time [no batteries needed]}.
Clint
“Flux is NOT a conserved quantity. It does NOT balance. A cone absorbing 900 W/m^2 at its base, with a total area 5 times its base, is emitting 180 W/m^2, at equilibrium temperature.
900 does NOT equal 180.”
Clint is correct.
The incident on the cone 900 W/m^2 flux is a parallel rays solar beam.
The outgoing 180 W/m^2 is an IR isotropic emission which is not directionally oriented.
Clint is not correct, he doesn’t use the same m^2 where some areas get zero w/m^2. This is usually Clint R’s failed trick.
Clint R keeps a nice list of Clint’s repeated physics failures.
rlh…”Solar gravity dictates that anything that orbits it is in a fixed path. The Moon orbits the Earth/Moon barycenter which in turn orbits the Sun. Therefore the Moon orbits the Sun (via extension)”.
***
Richard, you should stick to statistics or whatever you studied to get your Masters degree. Physics and general math are not your forte.
Solar gravity is nothing more than a traffic cop, directing planets into an orbital path. It dictates nothing specific. The determining factor for an orbit is the mass of a body and it’s linear velocity.
“The determining factor for an orbit is the mass of a body … ”
As with falling rocks, the mass is not a factor. If earth were 10x as massive, it would still orbit the same. If it was 1/81 as massive, it would still orbit the same.
“… and its linear velocity.”
Orbiting objects do not have a single orbital velocity. The velocity changes throughout the elliptical orbit.
What you need is the velocity AND the position at any one time to predict the orbit.
GR demonstrates he does not understand orbital mechanics at all.
Everybody knows that mass does not effect orbits. It does effect the position of the barycenter (possibly only slightly if the ratio of the 2 bodies are greatly dissimilar).
rlh…”GR demonstrates he does not understand orbital mechanics at all.
Everybody knows that mass does not effect orbits. It does effect the position of the barycenter (possibly only slightly if the ratio of the 2 bodies are greatly dissimilar)”.
***
Richard, you’re being obtuse.
Any orbit is an equilibrium state between the gravity of a central body and the momentum of the orbiting body.
momentum = MASS x velocity.
Gordon, would you says a “determining factor for motion of a falling object is the mass of a body”? Or a “determining factor for projectile motion is the mass of a body”?
No. A 1 kg rock or a 0.1 kg rock will hit the ground at the same time if dropped at the same time. A 1 kg rock or a 0.1 kg rock will follow the same path if launched at the same angle and speed.
Both momentum and the force of gravity are proportional to MASS. MASS cancels out. An orbit can be calculated perfectly without knowing the mass of a satellite. MASS is NOT a determining factor at all.
I removed some of the conservatism from the calculation of water vapor increase from average global temperature increase. All reported average global temperatures result in calculated maximum WV increase to be substantially less than WV measured by NASA/RSS. The graph at https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ehmJe6HkhzCd9knu57wp0mXLluoEc0rA/view?usp=sharing shows measured WV trend about 80% more than possible from average global temperature increase (net effect of all feedbacks and forcings). This demonstrates that there is another source of WV increase and that temperature increase is not driven by CO2 increase.
Well, less arctic polar sea ice.
Which could turn around- from changing weather.
It seems to me, Solar cycle changes seems to effect weather in arctic.
But going into Max, but how much and long of a Max, no one
is predicting. But some are projecting many things.
“result in calculated maximum WV increase to be substantially less than WV measured by NASA/RSS.”
‘Calculated’ with an actual theory for a real Earth? Reference?
Or is it simply Clausius-Clapeyron theory for a closed container with uniform temperature?
For Earth, with very non-uniform T, what T should be used?
Surface average? Lower Troposphere (LT) average? Mid Troposphere (MT) average?
Even so, the fit to RSS LT looks decent. Interestingly, RSS LT has similar trend to surface.
The method and algorithm are described in Section 7 of https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com which was available by clicking my name.
The theory (assum-tion) is that the % increase of WV is the same as the % increase in saturation vapor pressure. I believe that others use that assum-tion and I have seen a demonstration of that but I have not been able to find it again.
The best known data for saturation vapor pressure of water and ice are graphed as Fig 4 in https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com . The data for water was measured and for ice was calculated using thermodynamics. (Saturation vapor pressure vs temperature relation for water is obtained from “closed container with uniform temperature”. Exact Clausius-Clapeyron equation relates to how latent heat varies with the temperature of the liquid water at saturation conditions; not part of this assessment).
The 6.7%/C was determined from area weighted surface temperature map. The month to month temperature changes used in the algorithm are from a reported average global temperature; in this case Had-CRUT4. GISS data gave about the same results, UAH data a much greater spread (slope ratio 2.8). This is shown in Sect 8 of http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
Still unclear Dan. What T is used in the theory to predict ” % increase in saturation vapor pressure.”
Surface ave, LT ave, MT ave?
And why is it ok to use any of these averages when the Earth has an extremely non-uniform T, nonuniform RH, weather, land and a general circulation.
I believe the ‘theory’ you are testing is more like a ‘meme’ of constant RH, IOW a gross oversimplification of the real Earth.
A mismatch between a gross-oversimplification of Earth, and observations is hardly something to write home about!
Did you miss this part?
“The month to month temperature changes used in the algorithm are from a reported average global temperature; in this case Had-CRUT4. GISS data gave about the same results, UAH data a much greater spread (slope ratio 2.8). This is shown in Sect 8 of http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com”.
As you undoubtedly know, UAH reports LT and H4 & GISS report average global surface temperature. Because only slopes are compared, the absolute values are of minor importance as long as the measurements are relevant and done in a consistent manner.
It’s OK to use averages when all you are looking for is average results.
I am not testing anything. I have made some simple calculations using data and methods known to science to determine a maximum possible WV increase from just temperature increase.
The object of my work is to find out what humanity has been doing that has had an effect on the average global climate. The calculated average global temperatures track the measured average global temperatures quite well with the only contribution from humanity being increased WV. The comparison is graphed here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/13x0IZGytLsfI5GCx7o8JWT8yk-wRiJeq/view?usp=sharing
“I have made some simple calculations using data and methods known to science to determine a maximum possible WV increase from just temperature increase.”
Indeed simple calculations, very likely too simple.
“Im not testing anything.”
If that were true Dan, then you should not be drawing conclusions from this analysis:
“This demonstrates that there is another source of WV increase”
This is not a valid conclusion, because it is based on a comparison between observations and a ‘theory’ that is a gross oversimplification of Earth.
Nate,
You sound like you do not know how to calculate the maximum possible feedback from temperature increase of liquid water and are unwilling to accept that anyone does. Your loss!
Did you not even look at the saturation vapor pressure and temperature feedback properties of water as shown at Figure 4 in https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com ? It clearly shows that the feedback from temperature increase is about 7%/K at the highest and about 6%/K for most of the ocean area. The use of 6.7%/K is a rational bounding value for all surface water on earth. There is no gross oversimplification.
You further do not accept that measured WV increase being more than possible from evaporation of surface water does not demonstrate that there must be another source of WV. This is not serious.
“You sound like you do not know how to calculate the maximum possible feedback from temperature increase of liquid water and are unwilling to accept that anyone does.”
No Dan. You have done a calculation but have not shown that it is applicable to the real Earth with its complexity.
Please show us a journal publication that claims this calculation should work for the Earth.
The reason there are GCM similations is to incorporate the complexity of the Earth inccluding its general circulation pattern, ocean, land, T variation, etc.
Do GCM models agree with your simple calculation?
The GCMs run hot; about twice measured average global temperature. They are fundamentally flawed. My algorithm produces a good match of all measured average global temperatures as shown in Figure 12 at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
“The GCMs run hot; about twice measured average global temperature.
False.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/
“They are fundamentally flawed”
In what way?
By including many of the the actual features of the Earth, such as its general circulation pattern, oceans, land, how would GCM be MORE flawed then your model, which doesnt include these actual Earth features?
A longer answer was censored.
Nate asks how the models are flawed. Here is part:
Much of Climate Science is contaminated by misinformation. The misinformation is so heavily imbedded in the accepted underpinnings of climate science that attempts to correct it are often branded as misinformation.
One mistake is the assertion that water vapor change is not a driver of climate change because the residence time of WV molecules in the atmosphere is so short; only a few days. WV molecules absorb/emit infrared radiation (IR) in the wavelength range associated with earth temperature. This property makes it a (misleadingly named) greenhouse gas (ghg). As a ghg its influence on climate change depends on the population of WV molecules in the atmosphere at any time, and not on the duration any particular molecule is resident. Individual molecules precipitate out but they are continuously replaced. It is the average population reported as specific humidity or Total Precipitable Water (TPW) that matters to its dominance as a ghg.
TPW has been on an increasing trend. It has increased at an average rate of about 1.49% per decade since it has been measured worldwide; Jan 1988 to Jan 2021. Numerical values of anomalies have been reported monthly by NASA/RSS at http://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_202101.time_series.txt . This WV increase alone is enough to account for all that humanity has contributed to climate change. It should be explicitly input to the models.
Another mistake is the assumption that WV is determined by the Clausius-Clapeyron equation. The C-C equation, by definition, only applies at saturation and saturation only occurs in clouds. This mistake leads to another mistake which is that WV changes with the temperature of the air. It does not except locally where saturated (clouds). The natural driver of WV is the temperature of the natural liquid water at the surface (the rate at which water evaporates depends also on wind speed and the partial pressure of WV in the atmosphere). Humanity has added to the surface water area and to WV directly; mostly (about 90%) from irrigation.
Another mistake is the assumption of a single value for the feedback from temperature increase of about 7% per Celsius degree. The feedback varies with temperature. It is the percent slope of the saturation curve at a point divided by the temperature at that point. Accurate measurements of the saturation vs temperature for water and also for ice have been made by Wexler.
Dan,
Your graph says GISS w 6.7% feedback. How is that done?
When I apply 6.7% increase/deg C to GISS temp data over that period I get a slope of 0.039 whereas you appear to find 0.024.
The trend I find gets quite close to the measured TPW curve.
“The misinformation is so heavily imbedded in the accepted underpinnings of climate science that attempts to correct it are often branded as misinformation.”
Dan this is just a political statement. Not relevant.
“One mistake is the assertion that water vapor change is not a driver of climate change because the residence time of WV molecules in the atmosphere is so short; only a few days.”
This is false. GCM nodels DO incorporate the GHE of increased water vapor in the atmosphere. In the models, when water vapor increases for any reason, it produces a GHE, but also may influence clouds.
The residence time is irrelevant in the models.
“Another mistake is the assumption that WV is determined by the Clausius-Clapeyron equation. The C-C equation, by definition, only applies at saturation and saturation only occurs in clouds.”
Is this what is assumed in GCM models? Evidence? If so then why are the models supposedly running hot, and why do YOU use it in your model?
Nate,
I used the algorithm described at Sect 7 in https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com but using the monthly temperature data set for GISS thru June 2021. The slope of the trend line is 0.024118 as calculated by EXCEL.
How did you get 0.039?
Nate,
Unfortunately, the war on fossil fuels is motivated by politics.
The assertion that WV is not a driver is a common one that I run across often. It is probably based on the failure of the EPA to mention it as a ghg at https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials
I agree that residence time is not a factor in the models; just in the minds of a lot of people.
A typical statement is from https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/19/12887/2019/
“Table 1 shows that the slow responses of global-mean water vapour per kelvin of change in surface temperature are fairly close to the 7 % K−1 that we expect from the Clausius–Clapeyron relation.” Reveals a lack of understanding of what the CC equation is. This might have evolved from an approximation(s) that was useful to meteorologists prior to computers.
The feedback from temperature increase is determined at a temperature point from the % slope of the MEASURED saturation vapor pressure vs temperature curve. This is shown in Figure 1.7 in (click my name) to vary from about 6%/K to 12%/K. Gavin Schmidt admitted that the models run hot and Dr. John Christy has demonstrated it in graphs. I did a word search on the 5th IPPC report and found no mention of thermalization which explains how CO2 and WV molecules exchange energy.
I do not use the CC equation.
“monthly temperature data set for GISS thru June 2021. The slope of the trend line is 0.024118 as calculated by EXCEL.
How did you get 0.039?”
So I used this trend calculator, for 1988-present, GISS4, and find the T trend is
0.205 deg C/decade or 0.0205 C/year.
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
Multiply this by 6.7%/C and we find 0.00137 %/y.
Multiply this by the midpoint WV 29 kg/m2 and get:
0.0398 Kg/m^2/year for the trend.
Multiply by the initial WV value 28.25 kg/m^2 and get:
0.0388Kg/m^2/y
“Unfortunately, the war on fossil fuels is motivated by politics.”
“I agree that residence time is not a factor in the models; just in the minds of a lot of people.”
Again Dan, whether you are talking politics or about whats in the ‘minds of a lot of people’, neither one is science, and arent relevant to your claim that
‘GCM models are fundamentally flawed’.
Nate,
I get a T slope for GISS4 Jan 1988 to July 2021 of 0.0188 C/yr. Your source gives about 9% higher. It is puzzling that they are so different. They adjust the raw data which raises suspicion. In any event, it’s not enough to account for the difference in WV trends.
Our calculations are the same except that you made the WV assessment once on the trend of temperature and I calculated the WV change each month and cumulated the changes. I found no computational errors in either and am puzzled at why they are so different. I expect the month to month method to be better because it is closer to the way it happens in nature.
The reasons the GCMs are flawed are that they run hot and don’t hind cast well.
The reasons that they are fundamentally flawed are:
1. They don’t use measured water vapor but calculate it internally and get the wrong amount.
2. They don’t account for thermalization.
3. They use a single value (7%) to calculate feedback from surface liquid water warming.
4. They don’t account for influence solar change.
5. They don’t account for ocean surface temperature oscillations
There are probably more.
“The reasons that they are fundamentally flawed are:
1. They don’t use measured water vapor but calculate it internally and get the wrong amount.”
Do they get it wrong? It seems to me, models should calculate it internally from all other variables.
“2. They don’t account for thermalization.”
what does that mean? Evidence?
“3. They use a single value (7%) to calculate feedback from surface liquid water warming.”
Do they? Evidence?
“4. They don’t account for influence solar change.”
Who says?
“5. They don’t account for ocean surface temperature oscillations
There are probably more.”
Who says?
Dan, these are many claims that are assumptions on your part but may or may not be correct.
Nate,
1. AR5 p 42 “The magnitude of the observed global change in tropospheric water vapour of about 3.5% in the past 40 years is consistent with the observed temperature change of about 0.5°C during the same period, and the relative humidity has stayed approximately constant.”
Average global WV measured using satellite instrumentation Jan 1988 to Jan 2021 They report it at http://data.remss.com/vapor/monthly_1deg/tpw_v07r01_198801_202101.time_series.txt
Measured is about 31% more than const RH.
2. Thermalization is the process of absorbing photons and sharing the absorbed energy with surrounding molecules. It is explained further in Section 4 of http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
3-5. I haven’t examined the programs myself. These are consistent with what I have read over the years and I have never come across anything that disagreed. If you have evidence to the contrary, let’s hear it.
Dan,
“2. Thermalization is the process of absorbing photons and sharing the absorbed energy with surrounding molecules.”
They of course do this. GCM are like numerical weather models, and applying conservation of energy is one of the key physics principles involved in weather models and GCM.
Where do you get the idea that they dont do this? I think you are making un-supportable assumptions.
We still have a descrepancy in the disagreement you find between T and TPW.
Look, the main point is GCM are doing the best they can to model a very complex system. They include many of the features of the real Earth that you simply cannot. They model the atmosphere in 3D, couple it to the ocean and land masses, and allow it to evolve naturally by applying laws of physics, just as weather models do.
And just like weather models have improved over several decades, so GCM models can be expected to improve. They already have.
I read a book about their history. They were very crude until the late 70s, when they finally were able to get a GCM, using first principles, to generate, on its own, the Earth’s actual general circulation pattern. With increasing computational speed, and testing, they have improved the resolution.
To assume that YOU are modeling things BETTER with simple formulas, lacking these real Earth features such as its general circulation pattern, is simply hubris.
Nate,
Referring to Fig 10 in https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com (a MODTRAN generated TOA flux intensity vs wavenumber) much of the radiation energy absorbed by CO2 molecules in the altitude range 2-6 km is redirected via thermalization to WV molecules which radiate much of the energy to space. The notch centered on wavenumber 667 and outward directed radiation from WV indicated by the hash in the intensity below about wavenumber 590 demonstrates this.
I don’t find any reference to wavenumber in WG1AR5. How do the GCMs account for this energy redirection with respect to wavenumber?
I don’t assume that I am modeling things better. In fact, I don’t even assume that I am modeling things. Others asserted that my work was a ‘model’ to which I shrug. Mine is an ‘emergent structures analysis’. To quote Dr. Roy, this means “Rather than model the system from the bottom up with many building blocks, one looks at how the system as a whole behaves”.
The current GCMs don’t hind cast-well at all, run hot, and calculate significantly less WV than has been measured.
My stuff treats the planet as a single entity and I only use average data. Accounting for reported measured values of WV, the effect of SSN anomalies and an approximation of the net effect of ocean cycles results in a pretty good match to reported average global temperature.
The results of my work, which gives a good match to measured average global temperature with no contribution from CO2, and combined with paleo data, shows that CO2 change is not a significant contributor to climate change. The GCMs would be greatly improved by taking these things into account.
More importantly, improved models would show that CO2 change doesn’t have any significant effect on climate and the green new deal is a waste of time and resources.
“More importantly, improved models would show that CO2 change doesnt have any significant effect on climate and the green new deal is a waste of time and resources.”
Making it abundantly clear that its not about the science being right or wrong at all.
“The results of my work, which gives a good match to measured average global temperature with no contribution from CO2”
There is STILL a problem with your calculation of TPW from GISS. What happened?
So again, here you are claiming you are MODELING global temperature rise better than GCM do, without incorporating much of a model at all.
Again, this is Hubris! Of course you don’t realize it.
Why would there be NO contribution from CO2, given that its GHE has been measured and agrees with theory?
CO2 is non-condensible while water vapor is. That means CO2 is present even in the upper troposphere, where its effect on OLR is dominant.
Simulations of Earth, show that without CO2 and its GHE, most water vapor condenses, and we get more ice cover, ice-albedo feedback, and finally average global temp below freezing.
Nate,
“There is STILL a problem with your calculation of TPW from GISS. What happened?”
I can’t find anything wrong with my calculation of TPW from GISS. Apparently method (path) matters. Perhaps some math whiz could explain why. I don’t use this calculation for anything anyway. I use the measured TPW in the calculation of average global temperature trajectory.
“So again, here you are claiming you are MODELING global temperature rise better than GCM do, without incorporating much of a model at all.”
As I said above, I don’t consider what I have done to be a model. Adding to what I said above: I guessed what the three main contributing factors are and how they act (either directly for ocean cycles or, if a forcing, as a time-integral), combined them in an algorithm with attribution coefficients for each factor and then optimized the attribution coefficients to get the best match with measured. End result was a pretty good match without any contribution from CO2.
How is this hubris? If that is done, that is what results. Anyone can do it.
“Why would there be NO contribution from CO2, given that its GHE has been measured and agrees with theory?”
If you mean that CO2 is a ghg, OK. I am unaware of any measurement of the GHE from CO2. At ground level, WV molecules outnumber CO2 molecules by about 10,000/413 or about 24 to 1. WV molecules are more effective at absorbing surface radiation because their absor_p_tion lines are more spread out. I deduced from Hitran data that, molecule for molecule, WV molecules are about 37% more effective than CO2 molecules at ground level. End result, the slight added warming from added CO2 molecules at ground level is countered by the same number of added CO2 molecules in the stratosphere with the end result that added CO2 has no significant net effect on planet temperature.
“CO2 is non-condensible while water vapor is. That means CO2 is present even in the upper troposphere, where its effect on OLR is dominant.”
True but much of the radiation energy in the wavenumber range of ghgs has already been radiated to space by WV molecules. In the altitude range 2-6 km much of the outward directed radiation from WV will make it all the way to space. Energy absorbed by CO2 molecules in this altitude range (2-6 km) is redirected via thermalization to WV molecules. So, in the upper troposphere, although CO2 molecules outnumber WV molecules there is hardly any radiation left in the wavenumber range that CO2 molecules can absorb. This scenario is discussed in Section 5 of http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
For sea ice fans: the global (Arctic + Antarctic) average on Nov 14, absolute values in Mkm^2
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bg7XDrP5JipQWuu6NWPej7v4YBfZrTuD/view
A question for all the "Spinners".
Is Mt. Everest rotating on its own axis, wrt anything?
If "yes", wrt what?
I will answer that question if you define what you mean by rotating on its own axis.
Rotating about an axis going through the body of Mt. Everest, parallel to Earth’s axis.
I meant a general definition of rotating on an axis.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-1004152
” Is Mt. Everest rotating on its own axis, wrt anything? ”
The answer is quite simple: this question makes NO SENSE at all.
*
With respect to the phenomenon named ‘rotating on its own axis’, all commenters should
– restrict the discussion to celestial bodies
and therefore
– avoid completely useless and misleading blind-alleys like ‘merry-go-round’, ‘ball-on-a-string’ and of course… this poor Mt. Everest.
*
What about trying to concentrate instead on
https://naif.jpl.nasa.gov/naif/cosmographia.html
or
https://celestia.space/
*
In addition, experienced software engineers might have a look at recent developments at the ‘Deutsche Luft- und Raumfahrt’ (kinda German NASA):
https://github.com/cosmoscout/cosmoscout-vr
*
Maybe the following pictures help the so-called ‘Non-spinner’s in understanding how incredibly far away this Mt. Everest blah blah is from what the DLR people do:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1N6csahJUIyk6b-ITXV-28WDr4JXgS058/view
*
Flatearthism is no solution.
Just answer the question.
Can’t you read?
The answer is quite simple: this question makes NO SENSE at all.
I don’t answer questions making no sense.
Yet you responded, anyway…
…what about it makes no sense to you? I am just asking if you think Mt. Everest is rotating on its own axis, with regard to anything. Anything at all. Or let me put it another way: is there any frame of reference in which you think Mt. Everest is rotating on its own axis?
The only thing that makes sense to Braindead-idon is “nonsense”.
And he loves his nonsense. Especially if it comes from centuries-old astrologers.
” Especially if it comes from centuries-old astrologers. ”
Aha!
Clint R the insulting and lying Flatearthist is here again…
binny…” Is Mt. Everest rotating on its own axis, wrt anything?
The answer is quite simple: this question makes NO SENSE at all”
***
It’s the same question, re-stated, as to whether a wooden horse bolted to the floor of a merry-go-round, rotates about its axis as the MGR turns.
Does a gyro in a frame bolted to the horse rotate as the MGR rotates?
Does RLH continually ask stupid questions, and refuse to understand the point people are making?
No.
Wrt a gyro (which can always be considered to be aligned with the fixed stars), all things that are in a circular motion are rotating about it. This holds true if the gyro is at the center of the Earth (or Moon) or at its surface (on a Mountain or not).
rlh…”Wrt a gyro (which can always be considered to be aligned with the fixed stars), all things that are in a circular motion are rotating about it”.
***
Only to an idiot whose brain functions in a dimension other than the one in which we live.
So tell me how each one would determine that it wasn’t? What would the observation be from 2 separate gyros for instance placed 1 meter apart?
Are you saying that a number of gyro spread all over the Earth’s surface will not all rotate as the Earth rotates?
“Is Mt. Everest rotating on its own axis, wrt anything?”
As Bob points out, some definitions would be helpful, and DREMT steadfastly refused to offer any. So I guess we get to give our own definition.
Here is a simple definition. Using cylindrical coordinate, a rotation of a vector about the z-axis is a change in theta with no change r or z.
So … we could choose our z-axis to be through the COM of Mt Everest, parallel to the earth’s axis (ie ‘its own axis’), with z=0 at the COM. We also need to define a direction for the x-axis, for which we could use a distant star. The vector would be from this axis to some point in Mt Everest (not on the z-axis).
Clearly using this definition, Mt Everest is indeed rotating. Every point in Mt Everest is changing theta, but not changing r or z wrt the given axis.
******************************
If anyone doesn’t like this definition, then propose your own.
A simple “yes, wrt the fixed stars” would have sufficed, Tim.
So far we have RLH and Tim saying “yes, wrt the fixed stars”.
Bindidon and bob have refused to comment (but we already know that bob thinks everything on the planet is rotating on its own axis, so there is no real need to ask him).
No DREMT, it would NOT suffice! If you can’t define “rotation” then there is no point in any discussion. And you refuse to acknowledge a definition of rotation, which endlessly drags out this discussion.
Do *you* agree with this definition? If not, what is YOUR definition and YOUR answer based on YOUR definition.
I agree with E. Swanson’s statement:
“Mt. Everest is rotating, but it is not rotating around an “internal” axis. As part of the Earth, it will appear to rotate, but the axis of rotation will be one thru the CoM of the Earth.”
I just wanted to know how many of you “Spinners” disagreed with him (two so far), not answer questions from you about the definitions of well-known words. I started this thread, so I will be the one asking the questions, and you lot will be the ones answering them.
Many thanks.
🙂
Even wikipedia has an easy definition of “rotation”:
Rotation is the circular movement of an object around an axis of rotation. A three-dimensional object may have an infinite number of rotation axes.
If the rotation axis passes internally through the body’s own center of mass, then the body is said to be autorotating or spinning, and the surface intersection of the axis can be called a pole. A rotation around a completely external axis, e.g. the planet Earth around the Sun, is called revolving or orbiting, typically when it is produced by gravity, and the ends of the rotation axis can be called the orbital poles.
Of course braindead cults idiots still won’t understand.
Here, Pup:
https://sites.millersville.edu/rumble/Math.355/Book/Chapter%201.pdf
Please stop trolling.
DREMPTY,
You are lying by saying I have refused to answer.
I have not, I will answer if you define what you think rotation about an internal axis means.
But you won’t because then it’s all over for you and the Moon isn’t rotating crowd.
Using Mahdavi’s definition, Mt Everest definitely is rotating around an axis through the mountain.
Just like the hole saw cuts through your chalk circle when held non-rotating against the rotating merry go round.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-1003914
DREMPTY,
By that definition both Mt Everest and the Moon are rotating on an axis through their respective bodies.
False, bob…but funny.
Just like the hole saw cuts through your chalk circle when held non-rotating against the rotating merry go round.
It’s funny that you get confused by that, yes.
DREMPTY,
There is not confusion about the location of your precious chalk circle, it is resting on the ground below the merry-go-round.
Your reference to my state of confusion only loses the argument for you, that’s what happens when you go ad-hom.
You lose.
I’ve won every argument we’ve ever had…and we’ve had the chalk circle argument so many times already…
DREMPTY,
Nope, you have lost every argument.
How about the old over spinning record video.
That proves my point, that every part of an object that is rotating is rotating on its own axis.
OK, bob.
“I’ve won every argument we’ve ever had”
Please, for just pennies a day, you can save a child like this one, sadly afflicted with Dunning Kruger syndrome, and others who might become infected with this dreaded disease.
The funny thing is, bob, even my stalker (and Tim) agrees with me that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion as per the MOTL, not the MOTR. Unless he is going to go back on his former statements…
…and that is the source of most of your confusion on this entire issue. You claim that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion as per the MOTR. You claim that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is the same motion as “translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis”. You make the classic mistake Madhavi warns against, of conflating curvilinear translation, with rotation.
This mistake is the reason you have lost all those arguments on this issue. You just don’t get that movement as per the MOTL can be seen as one single motion.
And there is nothing anyone can say to you that will ever change your mind. Hence I just say, “OK, bob”. There is no point talking to you.
As always its whatabout anyone but DREMT.
#2
OK, bob.
DREMPTY,
You seem to be suffering from believing that people are agreeing with you syndrome.
The caption under your favorite gif doesn’t agree with you.
Tim doesn’t agree with you. Nate doesn’t agree with you.
The only way for you to think people are agreeing with you is to take there words out of context.
Only Clint R and Gordon agree with you.
And about Mahdavi, if something is only rotating, it can’t be translating at the same time, that’s the mistake you are making. The Moon’s motion is general plane motion, ie, rotation plus translation.
It’s impossible to be just rotation.
You lose again, for the umpteenth time.
#3
OK, bob.
DREMPTY,
If you are counting the times you have lost the argument, you are way behind.
If you are counting the times the Moon has rotated since this argument began, you are also way behind.
If you are displaying your IQ, you are just about right.
#4
OK, bob.
DREMPTY,
Try your local library, maybe they have a nice beginner book on Astronomy.
I recommend the Zim series.
About your speed.
#5
OK, bob.
If we have a million gyros on planet Earth evenly distributed around its volume, they will all conclude that the Earth is rotating around them. They would be correct in that observation.
Earth has only two axes of rotation. One through its poles, one through the Sun/Earth barycenter.
Actually the Solar system barycenter is not only decided purely by the Sun, but by ALL the planets in the system also.
The Moon has only two axes of rotation. One through its poles, one through the Moon/Solar system barycenter.
The point I was making is that the Earth does not have a million axes of rotation, as you claimed.
Are you saying that a million gyros will not remain aligned with the fixed stars? Regardless where on Earth they are placed?
The Earth is not rotating about each and every gyro, as you claimed. Unless you have no idea what rotation is. In which case, knock yourself out.
1. Are the gyros aligned with the fixed stars and thus seem to be rotating wrt the Earth?
2. If attached to the gyros (and the fixed stars) will the Earth seem to be rotating in return?
The Earth is not rotating about each and every gyro.
Is the gyro rotating wrt the Earth?
Sigh.
Is the gyro rotating wrt the Earth?
If it is then the Earth is rotating wrt it.
Sighs won’t cut it.
The Earth is rotating, but not about the gyro itself. The gyro does not represent an axis of rotation for the Earth, wherever you put it!
pups, I’m with RLH on this one. There’s no need for a million, just three mounted orthogonally in a gimbol mount will do. And, orbiting is not “rotating”, as you call it, since the distance between the principal focus and the orbiting body will not be constant for non-circular orbits.
“The gyro does not represent an axis of rotation for the Earth”
That wasn’t the question. Is the gyro remining fixed, pointing at the fixed stars. Do they rotate wrt the the Earth.
“The gyro does not represent an axis of rotation for the Earth, wherever you put it!”
So if I were to put a gyro at the North and South Poles it would not show that the Earth rotated once every 24 hours?
Likewise if I were to put them at the Moon’s poles it would not show that the Moon rotated once every 27 days?
The Earth is rotating about an axis going through the Poles regardless of where you put the gyro. If you put the gyro in Australia it does not mean the Earth is suddenly rotating about an axis passing through Australia.
Will a gyro placed in Australia show that the Earth is rotating?
…yes, but not about an axis passing through Australia.
Similarly, if you put a gyro on the moon, it will show that the moon is rotating…but not about an axis passing through the CoM of the moon.
Will a gyro placed at the poles show the Earth is rotating at the same rate?
I’ve made my point, and will answer no more questions. You can either respond to the point I’ve made, or continue to evade.
If you would like to start your own thread, you can ask as many questions as you like, and if I choose to join you there, I shall be obliged to answer them. If I choose to join you there.
And one through the center of the Milky Way.
and
“A three-dimensional object may have an infinite number of rotation axes.”
and therefore on for every gyro on Earth.
and one for every camera taking a time lapse photo of the night sky showing Polaris or the Southern Cross
bob freely admits to believing everything on Earth is rotating on its own axis.
“Ive made my point, and will answer no more questions”
Your point has not been made with respect to the gyros. Just a duck and dive as usual.
All the gyros on the planet Erath will show that the Earth rotates once very 24 hours just as all gyros on the Moon will show it rotates once every 27 days.
As Bob says, they will also show the yearly orbit of the Sun and the much longer rotation of the galaxy.
"All the gyros on the planet [Earth] will show that the Earth rotates once [every] 24 hours [on its own axis] just as all gyros on the Moon will show it rotates once every 27 days [about the Earth/moon barycenter]."
All the pieces of the puzzle are right there for you. Mt. Everest does not rotate on its own axis, but your gyros will show that it rotates once every 24 hours. All you have to be able to do is piece together what rotates around what. Which you cannot do, because you get yourself confused by thinking the moon orbits the Sun, and other such things.
DREMPTY
“bob freely admits to believing everything on Earth is rotating on its own axis.”
Nope, it has nothing to do with my beliefs.
It’s just a fact, deal.
Or a trivial mathematical transformation.
You pick.
That you won’t understand is a given.
Well, that’s because you still don’t believe the Moon rotates on its axis after all these years.
Oh but I do understand, bob. Only too well. You can believe that every object on the planet is translating in a circle whilst rotating on its own axis if you like, but that is all it will ever be. A belief. Because there is no physical mechanism in place for that to be happening, in reality. There is nothing physically translating Mt. Everest in a circle whilst also physically rotating it on its own axis, once per day. All that is happening is that the Earth is rotating…and all that can do is rotate Mt. Everest about the Earth’s axis, along with the rest of the Earth.
DREMPTY,
Yes there are mechanisms, and a simple long exposure camera shot reveals the truth of the matter, wherever you put the camera, is will show the stars moving in circles around an axis that goes through the camera lens.
Poor bob will always find ways to delude himself. Oh well, not my problem.
DREMPTY,
Since you can’t address my argument, only refer to the amount of cash in my pocket or how I manage to delude myself, you lose the argument.
Loser.
bob’s one tactic is – repeat arguments that we have already had, then when I can’t be bothered to go through the motions of repeating my side of the argument, declare victory. He’s a child.
DREMPTY,
You are projecting your tactics onto me.
Sorry that won’t work, you have debunked none of my arguments, you just retreat to your “but not on its own axis” bullshit.
And you make claims contradicted by the sources you cite, when you even bother to make a citation.
And when that fails, you go the ad-hom route and claim I don’t understand your argument, and guess what, that fails too.
Then you double down, calling me a child.
How’s that working for you?
OK, bob.
Here are some videos to watch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-DTjpde9-0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nedusgCUZC4
#2
OK, bob.
DREMT: If you are translating without rotation then you will always be aligned to the fixed stars. That’s what linear translation means.
Yes, I know.
Folkerts, I’ll add this to your growing list of perversions of physics.
* Moon rotates about its axis.
* Ball-on-a-string is not a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
* Fluxes add
* Ice cubes can boil water
* A jet flying overhead has angular momentum.
* S/B Law no longer is valid.
* Mt. Everest rotates on its axis
Define the limits for Mt. Everest.
tim…”Is Mt. Everest rotating on its own axis, wrt anything?
As Bob points out, some definitions would be helpful, and DREMT steadfastly refused to offer any. So I guess we get to give our own definition”.
***
No definition is required unless you are trying to abstract the question to a point where it moves into the sci-fi domain. It’s a simple question for which you continue to produce an obfuscated reply.
How about his one. Can you walk through a brick wall?
> No definition is required unless you are trying to abstract the question to a point where it moves into the sci-fi domain.
C’mon, Gordo.
What you call sci-fi is called a coordinate system.
Even Kiddo knows that one.
Only two answers so far – Tim and RLH say, “yes, wrt the fixed stars”.
Any other “Spinners”?
All parts of a planet and moon rotate wrt the fixed stars.
Your delusions have got a lot worse over time. There was a time when you at least recognized that Mt. Everest was not rotating on its own axis, wrt anything.
You have just modified your definitions to exclude my explanations so far. I have always understood the difference between rotating and revolving.
I also understand that gyros are a good reference for the fixed stars.
I have modified nothing.
First DREMT writes: “The gyro does not represent an axis of rotation for the Earth, wherever you put it!”
Than DREMT modifies to: “The Earth is rotating about an axis going through the Poles regardless of where you put the gyro.”
DREMT has modified something when called out wrong LOL. Now per DREMT the gyro does represent an axis of rotation for the Earth when placed at the earthen poles.
Same thing happens on our moon when gyro aligned to fixed stars is placed at the lunar poles as RLH and many others point out.
Ball4 spins, twists and distorts. He is simply a troll, to be ignored.
DREMT 10:39 am lashes out when shown the truth. This is expected since DREMT hasn’t proven his case in something like three years of repeatedly attempting to do so.
What I wrote, in full, in my 10:32 AM comment does not modify my 8:32 AM comment. It simply clarifies what I meant. Ball4 likes to take quotes out of the full context, snip out the important bits, and present things in such a way as to come across however he wants it to.
What I meant by, "the Earth is rotating, but not about the gyro itself. The gyro does not represent an axis of rotation for the Earth, wherever you put it!" is that if you put the gyro in different locations around the Earth, for example in Australia, or in India somewhere, there is not suddenly an axis of rotation for the Earth in Australia, or India. Obviously if you put the gyro actually at the Poles it is going to coincide with the Earth’s axis of rotation.
RLH seemed to be suggesting that wherever you put the gyro (including besides the Poles), the Earth is rotating around an axis at that point!
Correction: 10:02 AM comment.
“…wherever you put the gyro (including besides the Poles), the Earth is rotating around an axis at that point!”
Not necessarily – the gyro could be on your mgr spinning exactly to cancel the rotation on its own axis at the earthen poles or anywhere else.
And I see you admit to having to modify your statement “obviously”. Thanks.
“RLH seemed to be suggesting that wherever you put the gyro (including besides the Poles), the Earth is rotating around an axis at that point!”
I did no such thing. I was pointing out that the gyro will rotate as observed from the Earth at that point. Conversely the Earth will seem to rotate about the gyro as seen from the gyro.
OK then, RLH, that was not what you meant. I accept that. Perhaps you could have worded this a bit more carefully then:
"If we have a million gyros on planet Earth evenly distributed around its volume, they will all conclude that the Earth is rotating around them. They would be correct in that observation."
…because it comes across like you are arguing each gyro is another axis of rotation for the Earth that the Earth is now "rotating around". If you acknowledge that the Earth does not have a million axes of rotation, then good. This is why I then said to you:
"The point I was making is that the Earth does not have a million axes of rotation, as you claimed."
But instead of turning around and saying "no, I’m not claiming that", you then went off and proceeded to ask a series of questions, making it seem as though you were trying to defend that claim.
Each gyro will continue to point at a fixed star regardless of how the Earth (or Moon) moves under them.
If they are rotating then the gyros will show that.
The Earth will seem to rotate about the gyro as seen from the gyro.
So you do not have a point. Got it.
The point is that a gyro will show rotation wrt the fixed stars.
Yes, I know…but “about which axis” remains ambiguous, so that really solves nothing.
Yes, astrologers and flatearthers. More of your nonsense, Braindead-idon.
Now, answer DREMT’s question.
Dear Pup,
If I answer Kiddo’s question, do you promise not to comment for the next three months?
Alternatively, you could do the Pole Dance Experiment.
As one could call, an “axis point” of the revolution of orbit being below Earth surface AND very close the Sun??
Rather than an odd expression like “axis point” a better {or accepted term} is a barycenter also spelt by brits and perhaps Canadians as, barycentre [“from the Ancient Greek βαρύς heavy κέντρον center”}
The Moon [and Earth] revolve around two barycenters and Earth spins upon it’s axis.
{which around 23.5 degrees- which changes over defined period of time, so one could call it a type of clock, and it’s one of cycles of Milankovitch cycles, that “varies between 22.1 degrees and 24.5 degrees, over a cycle of about 41,000 years.” – wiki}.
gbaikie…”Rather than an odd expression like axis point a better {or accepted term} is a barycenter …”
***
The concept of a barycentre is highly theoretical. There are star systems called binary star systems in which two stars are claimed to rotate around each other. However, the notion that the Earth and Moon rotate about a barycentre strikes me as absurd.
Gravity is simply not that strong of a force. The Moon can raise the oceans about a metre at high tide, in mid-ocean, but I don’t see any physical evidence that the Moon is moving the Earth off its orbital path at all.
Google: “Has earth’s motion around of barycenter been measured”
First hit:
“Absolutely yes if you can count the wobbling motion of the spacecraft that tracks Earth’s wobble about the Earth-Moon barycenter.”
Down page a bit, it gets sort of off topic:
“Nov 03, 2021 So, the barycenter between Earth and the sun is very close to the center of the sun. Jupiter is a lot larger than Earth. It has 318 times more mass. As a result, the barycenter of Jupiter and the sun isnt in the center of the sun. Its actually just outside the sun’s surface! Our entire solar system also has a barycenter. ”
So earth isn’t enough, But Jupiter is enough to bring barycenter out.
And curious if you doubt Jupiter can make it outside of Sun’s surface.
And if Jupiter and Saturn are close to being lined up, can put it further away from Sun?
Or do they “add” or combine with each other.
Of course other question is does the sun “orbit” the Jupiter/Sun
barycenter?
One thing about gravity, earth pulls you down but “equally” you pull earth towards you.
This one of many reasons, I wonder about sameness assumed about artificial gravity vs “real gravity”. Artificial gravity is just one force.
I want tests, short term, months, and longer term, decades.
Or years might show up a difference. And months would be needed to “work well enough” if one wants do any significant space exploration.
There’s a standard experiment for measuring the Earth’s gravity gradient by measuring the weight of a test mass at different heights. From it you can calculate g and G.
Since this has been done in many schools and universities over many years, any large trend in G would have been spotted.
“does the sun ‘orbit’ the Jupiter/Sun barycenter?”
How could it not? If the 2 were the same mass then the barycenter would be in the middle between them both. Why would it differ because the relationship was unequal?
There is a way. One could have word argument.
Which seems very popular, here.
–Correct Answer: The Sun
The earth doesn’t orbit the barycenter of anything, this is due to a technicality in the terminology.
Revolve = to move in a curved path round a center or axis
Orbit = a path described by one body in its revolution about another
To orbit, it requires one body moving around another.
So while it is accurate to say that the Earth revolves around the Solar System’s barycenter (which is constantly changing), it is not accurate to say it orbits it, as a barycenter is a dynamical point, not a physical object.—
To question:
What point does Earth actually orbit?
https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/18169/what-point-does-earth-actually-orbit
Or depends on the definition: Depends on what word is, is.
As some US president said.
“However, the notion that the Earth and Moon rotate about a barycentre strikes me as absurd”
So how do you account for the fact that gravity operates on both bodies?
Wasn’t that the first way of detecting exoplanets, by the way they cause the star to move around their barycentre?
Correct:
https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/barycenter/en/
A question to everyone, including our Moon Dragon cranks:
1. Activate
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/6uulclrcjc
2. Eliminate Changing Magnitude to remove useless ellipses.
3. Eliminate Transformation to remove useless orbits.
4. Open Elliptical Example, and set the value of x11 to 0.
That should be enough to see one thing:
A green line that stretches quite a bit.
Is that a pure rotation to you?
Many thanks!
The: “almost impossible to change someones mind”
And the: I want to change my mind.
Which leading to question, how much do I have pay someone to change my mind?
Well I know even small amount of money can motivation.
And know hardly anyone would pay any amount money to do anything about climate change.
And I am not interested in Climate Change.
The degree that I am uninterest in Climate Change, encourages me
to want to pay money, in order to have my mind changed.
So it seems to me, that Venus at Earth distance would be colder.
But everyone knows this. Duh!
Or a crazy idea, is Venus at 1 AU is the same or a warmer planet.
So, what I want my mind changed about is how cold Venus would become at Earth distance.
If Venus spun as fast as Earth at it’s distance from the Sun, I have no opinion on whether it gets colder or warmer.
But if Venus spun as fast as Earth at Earth distance from the Sun, it’s going to be considerably, less cold.
As compared to it’s current rate of spin.
And Earth would be colder if it spun like Venus is currently spinning.
Such things are commonly known.
[[Now wondering if any money to be made by having stupid religion that no one is interested in?
Is climate change that religion?]]
But if Venus receives about 1360 watts per square meter of sunlight and spinning as it’s spinning, it’s going to colder than
Earth.
{It seems reasonable to doubt this}
Now, this does not seem like it’s useful me- though it is similar to Mercury.
Though most people apparently don’t get how cold Mercury is.
Mercury day is:
“On Mercury a day lasts 1,408 hours, and on Venus it lasts 5,832 hours” 1408 / 24 = 58.6667 days
But:
“Equally unusual is the diurnal cycle on Mercury i.e. the cycle of day and night. A single year lasts only 88 days on Mercury, but thanks again to its slow rotation, a day lasts twice as long! That means that if you could stand on the surface of Mercury, it would take a staggering 176 Earth days for the Sun to rise, set and rise again to the same place in the sky just once!”
https://www.universetoday.com/47834/length-of-day-on-mercury/
Forget my question or how cold Mercury is.
Is Mercury’s daytime 176 Earth days or 58.6667 Earth days?
[I was thinking comparing in terms Mercury vs Venus:
“When you do that math, the speed of rotation at the equator of Venus is about 4 mph!”
Similar to Mercury. Though at 60 degree latitude about 4 mph at equator is about 2 mph. But got the year of 88 days vs 243 days and so, 243 / 88 = about 2.76. So over time of 20 or 100 years time, 176 times 2.76 or 58.6667 times 2.76 ]
Climate is a chaotic system , it does not need any external force to behave weirdly and go into extremes, it is perfectly capable to do it on its own
https://youtu.be/dhZxdV2naw8
That applies to Earth weather.
It’s why someone like Judith Curry is worried.
But she and many are brainwashed to think, weather is
climate.
We in icehouse global climate, other than it’s getting colder
over last couple million years, it’s fairly predictable.
A glaciation period is coming.
We apparently are way past Holocene warming peak, there could be
a double peak, maybe.
But we are recovering from the Little Ice Age, returning quickly to it or colder, is possible. Though rapid cooling appears to be fairly common, which may appear common due to it’s very bad consequences {lots of dead bodies to find}.
eben…”Climate is a chaotic system , it does not need any external force to behave weirdly and go into extremes, it is perfectly capable to do it on its own…”
***
That’s comforting, reminds me of myself.
It’s not the climate that’s chaotic its the weather, moving around the current strange attractor.
If you look at Paleocene temperatures, Earth has five climate strange attractors spaced about 5C apart.
Snowball Earth 4C
Icehouse glacial 9C
Icehouse interglacial 14C
Hothouse 19C
Extreme hothouse 24C
For the last few million years we have been alternating between Icehouse glacial and Icehouse interglacial.
I interpret the recent increase in extreme weather as the instability one would expect ad we transition from Icehouse interglacial to Hothouse.
Snowball Earth 4C
A global air temperature of 4 C is easy to cause, but the 4 C global air temperature would be rather brief.
In terms long term or runaway leading to snowball, other than what nature is doing {coldest in last 2 million years}…
Yeah, I guess you do that by stopping the ocean from absorbing sunlight- cover the tropical ocean with floating structures- turn it into a vast “parking lot”. Very expensive to do. And would need an army to stop humans from living on the vast region of real estate.
Extreme hothouse 24C
Human lack power/ability to do it- other then move Earth to Venus distance. Or wait for Earth to change the Earth. Oh, what am I thinking, very easy, just impact Earth with big impactors, there are lots them which are easy to nudge to put a path to impact Earth.
Temporary making much hotter than 24 C is easy. But for long term climate, one also use impactors to change the geology of Earth.
But extreme hothouse is not 24 C. That’s India average yearly temperature. And extreme hothouse would be average temperature of ocean being +15 C- need to warm 3.5 ocean to +15 C.
For average of 24 C, less than 10 C should work.
100 Km diameter space rock could make the oceans boil- moving Vesta to hit Earth is probably an overkill, but send chunks of Vesta at Earth. And I just impact Antarctica, hit it with dozens of chunks of Vesta.
tim…GR…”The determining factor for an orbit is the mass of a body
Tim…As with falling rocks, the mass is not a factor. If earth were 10x as massive, it would still orbit the same. If it was 1/81 as massive, it would still orbit the same”.
***
Tim…you are confusing something here. The mass is a factor, even with falling objects.
F = GMm/r^2
M = mass of Earth, which will remain constant since we are changing m to two different masses. Say m1 is 1 Kg and m2 is 10 kg.
From F = GMm/r^2…F is the gravitational force between Earth and the mass, m. We can see what happens if we increase m and note what happens as m -> M. Obviously, when m = M, F is maximum.
Now check out what happens as m -> 0. F -> 0. Therefore the force applied to any mass by Earth is dependent on the size of the mass.
F = ma = mg. We know from Newton II that g is constant at 9.8 m/s^2. So, consider two masses, m1 = 1 kg and m2 = 10 kg. We hold them at the same height and we are going to let them drop together.
f1 = m1g and f2 = m2g.
g = f1/m1 = f2/m2
therefore, f1/m1 = f2/m2
We saw from above that f1 and f2 are dependent on the size of the mass being dropped to Earth. Therefore, f1 and f2 must vary with m1 and m2.
That’s why both bodies drop at the same speed, the attractive force on the smaller mass is less than the attractive force on the larger mass.
Let’s put the numbers in there without the kgs.
f1/1 = f2/10
so. f2 = 10f1
That means the force applied to the heavier mass is 10x the force applied to the lighter mass.
***
This is a lot different than mass having no effect. The Moon has no other effect on its motion than its linear momentum. Since momentum = mass x velocity, you can see that mass is critical to the Moon’s momentum, hence its motion.
***
“Orbiting objects do not have a single orbital velocity. The velocity changes throughout the elliptical orbit.
What you need is the velocity AND the position at any one time to predict the orbit”.
***
You are confusing velocity with speed. Other spinners have claimed that points on the Moon further from the Earth move at a greater velocity than points closer to Earth. While that is true, the determining factor for calculating the period of the lunar orbit is speed, which is the average total distance in the orbital path divided by the time taken for one orbit.
I have claimed the linear velocity of the Moon remains constant while the speed varies. That may sound crazy but you have to consider the dynamics of the Moon’s motion, which is a bit crazy wrt motion on the surface.
The Moon is moving in a friction-less environment where there is nothing to slow its momentum, or increase it. The only variable is Earth gravitational force and it acts to tighten the elliptical curve or allow it to slacken.
The lunar orbit is not pre-determined, like a freeway or a horse track. It is created on the move by the Moon’s motion. If Earth’s gravity has a slightly stronger pull, it will force the orbit closer to a circle. If it slacks a bit, it will allow the Moon’s momentum to have more effect, and that will make the orbit more eccentric.
That means the Moon will cover a greater distance with the same tangential velocity, simply because gravity has a slightly lesser effect on its extended motion.
If you want to keep tangential velocity constant, as in s/t, where s = distance, then the time taken, t, has to change in proportion. Hence, you have an elongated curve, called an ellipse.
Gordo repeats another example of his delusional physics:
The magnitude of the Moon’s velocity is less at apogee than it is at perigee. Moving around it’s orbit, the force of gravity is only perpendicular to the orbit at apogee or perigee, at other points, gravity will either accelerate or decelerate the Moon as it revolves in it’s orbit.
Velocity and speed can be considered to be synonymous if they are both applied in a single direction, as speed is only a scalar quantity and velocity is a vector.
https://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/1DKin/Lesson-1/Speed-and-Velocity
RLH, You got a problem with reading comprehension? Notice I wrote “magnitude” to avoid confusion.
You have a problem with speed and velocity being the same if we are only discussing a single direction?
The magnitude of velocity = speed if you want it succinctly.
The sum of the knowledge posted today: the angel who dances on the head of a pin is rotating around her axis.
Got it.
We are being deluged by rain in the Vancouver, Canada area. Some weather people are claiming record rainfall.
I can remember, as a kid, playing soccer on water-logged fields which resembled lakes more than a park. I thought it was great fun booting the ball into a mini-lake then dashing in, along with several other kids, trying to kick the ball out of the water only to have it go nowhere.
The real hero was the referee. As much as I abused them later in life, with the threat of being kicked out of the game, I have to hand it to any ref who would show up in p***ing rain, while wading through lakes of water, to ref a kid’s game.
Then, getting on a local bus, in a soaking wet uniform, for the trip home. No hot showers at home either, just stripping off the wet stuff, drying off with a towel, then getting some dry stuff on….and more often than not, back out in the rain to ‘play’.
I am waiting for some idiotic weather-type to claim this rain as proof of climate change. They did it last summer with the heat-wave we suffered but they are now surprisingly quiet with the current ‘weather’.
People have lost homes, valuable property like cars. I am sure a few people’s lives got swept away too. Its certainly not the time for some ravening nutter to make unfounded claims about Climate Change Claptrap.
The ‘fun’ bit is going to be figuring out how the two major rail lines and the highways connecting Vancouver to the rest of Canada are going to get repaired before winter makes it impossible. That should impact supply chain issues.
I hope you are not in the path of any of the ongoing disaster in Vancouver Area.
It has not been a significant event in Campbell River though the River itself is running quite high.
ken…”People have lost homes, valuable property like cars. I am sure a few people’s lives got swept away too. Its certainly not the time for some ravening nutter to make unfounded claims about Climate Change Claptrap”.
***
I’m in Richmond and before the dykes were built it was often under water in inclement WEATHER. This flooding is nothing new, the extent of it may be new but the effects are not.
The situation in Merritt, is related to idiots designing a water control system that was not designed to deal with this much water. The system allowed sewage to become mixed with runoff and now the city is soaked with sewage-filled runoff. The entire city is being evacuated.
In fact, many of the situations blocking highways could likely have been averted with some foresight. Cut down trees next to roadways, power lines, and next to mountain streams. But, no…that would offend eco-loonies.
All I see in the news these days is the new alarmist phrase ‘atmospheric river’. One of the guys writing this crap is also in the new Climate Change Ministry.
Atmospheric river??? Climate bombs????
Arctic air is now a ‘polar vortex’???? You see, if air flows naturally from the frozen Arctic, it doesn’t look good for climate alarmists. Looks much better if global warming can somehow create a vortex that destabilizes the Arctic and explains why the warming has stopped for a bit.
Has not occurred to alarmists that there is little or no Sun for several months in winter, hence the Arctic freezes.
Duh!!!! CO2 does not seem to have much of a warming effect up there.
Gordo pontificated again:
As I demonstrated back in 2017, warming in the Arctic is greatest in the winter months, as seen in the band passed RSS TLT data. See Figures 7 and 8. Note that the band pass calculation removes the overall trend, so the curves represent the fact that the Arctic is warming faster in Winter than Summer. The current RSS Arctic trend is 0.469 K/decade.
Not much warming showing on UAH. Are you saying that this site is wrong? Where is your proof of that?
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/uah-south-pole.jpeg
-30C up from -31C … global warming? Not.
The Arctic, Richard.
Not Antarctica.
RLH, UAH shows +0.25 C/decade in the NoPol region vs +0.14 C/decade globally.
RLH, Yeah, I’m one who thinks the UAH results understate the warming in the Arctic. For example, Spencer and Christy have never described the method they used to arrive at their one-size-fits-all-seasons equation which combines the TM, TP and LS data to create the LT. Remember that the LT is not actually “data”, but a mathematical fabrication based on theoretical models of emissions.
My other objection to the LT is that the MSU/AMSU instruments show open water as being colder than sea-ice, which is the way the data for sea-ice extent is determined. As melt season sea-ice has declined and more melt ponding also occurs, these instruments record lower brightness temperatures. It’s well known that the LT exhibits peak emissions at a lower pressure altitude and, as a result, includes a stronger influence from the surface than that in the MT.
I’ve put in a lot of time doing “homework” to understand what UAH did, which is the basis for my skepticism. You appear to be using a “faith based” approach, assuming without proof that UAH is correct and all the other data is wrong.
Willard: Yes sorry. I was showing that over the period since 1979, parts of the planet have not warmed at all.
ES. So you feel that despite UAH showing that their results match well with balloon data (where they coincide) that their methodology is suspect because you don’t like it? Even though the disparity between UAH and RSS has been the subject of much discussion.
All vertical dispersion will involve some overlap which blurs their banding but UAH (Global) corresponds quite well to AIRs (Global) over their overlap period.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/11/airs7.jpeg
RLH, Perhaps you are aware that other research has shown good agreement between balloon data and the RSS product. Of course, both UAH and the RSS comparisons use balloon data AFTER processing it to SIMULATE the satellite products.
I have no clue what you mean when you wrote:
That sounds to me like you have no clue about the subject.
ES: I do indeed understand how the vertical banding works. It has many overlaps between the adjacent bands as I described.
ES: See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_Sounding_Unit_temperature_measurements#/media/File:Weighting_Function.png
RLH, Perhaps you should expand your comment and define what you mean with the words “band” and “vertical dispersion” and how said dispersion “blurs” the bands.
ES: See the wiki diagram above.
RLH, Yes, I’ve worked with those data from RSS, so I understand them rather well. And that data is not be the same as that from UAH, BTW. But, your reply didn’t answer my question. Please expand your comment and define what you mean with the words band and vertical dispersion and how said dispersion blurs the bands
ES: As you prefer RSS so much why don’t you post your praise for them on their blog.
You are obviously an RSS shrill.
If you look at the diagram I posted (which is almost the same as the one you referenced below in UAH’s paper) you will notice that each band, TLT, TMT, TTT, TTS and TLS overlap quite a bit.
What is wrong with that and my previous observations?
RLH, I have no association with RSS, not that that changes things. But, from your comment:
It appears that you still don’t understand. The TMT, TTS and TLS series are the results of processing the MSU channels 2, 3 and 4 with the AMSU channels 5, 7 and 9. The TLT and TTT are products derived from the data, based on theoretical models. The curves on that graph are calculated assuming a particular profile of temperature vs. pressure height (or altitude), called the US Standard Atmosphere, which is itself a model. That atmospheric model starts at the surface with a temperature of 20C, which is a reasonable approximation for the latitude of the US, but wildly wrong for the tropics and the Arctic during winter.
The UAH approach is even more divorced from reality, as three channels are combined, based on some unstated theoretical assumptions. To be sure, they do document their processing steps, but completely gloss over any questions regarding the fundamental basis of their work.
Sorry, I can’t accept your repeated assertions that UAH’s LT product is “better” than that of RSS or NOAA STAR.
And I don’t accept your repeated assertions that RSS is ‘better’ than UAH.
RLH, I don’t recall writing that the RSS products are “better” than the UAH (or the NOAA ones for that matter). My dislike of the UAH LT product is based on scientific fact.
UAH long ago warned users about the problems with their gridded product over the high elevations of the Antarctic. RSS doesn’t include data poleward of 70S and also removes data over other high elevation mountain ranges as well. The early data from the MSU channel 3 was flawed with much scan data lost, as a result, the RSS channel 3 product doesn’t even begin until 1986. UAH once removed scans in which intense storms produced hydrometeors, as they caused a cold bias, but they no longer does so with v6. All this is in addition to my questions about the LT v6 processing.
Perhaps you think all these problems are of no concern, since the UAH products confirm your bias. That’s your problem, not mine.
“My dislike of the UAH LT product is based on scientific fact”
Your opinion is not fact.
RLH, What I wrote are facts, not opinions, facts which you continue to ignore. Can you actually discuss the science instead of presenting your biased viewpoint?
RLH
Divergences like this one keep cropping up.
https://dav*idapp*ell.blogspot.com/2021/11/divergence-of-lower-troposphere-warming.html
( Remove * before use)
It is interesting that of the half dozen global temperature datasets, UAH has always shown the lowest warming rate and the other sceptic influenced dataset Berkeley shows the highest.
Berkeley and others use non-statistical area smoothing methodologies to obtain their results.
As noted elsewhere, previous global temperatures have been ‘adjusted’ and ‘inferred’ via such algorithms to obtain the ‘required’ results.
RLH, Do you think that averaging the LT over a 2.5 degree grid isn’t a form of “area averaging”? And, how accurate are the land vs. ocean masks divisions at that grid level?
Then there’s the UAH treatment of the MSU data, using a 1×1 deg grid, then “smearing” the scan data into 3 adjacent grid locations (or is it smeared into a group of 3×3 grid boxes?). After that, they somehow convert the 1×1 degree grid into a 2.5×2.5 grid. Go figure.
I said non-statistical area smoothing which is what Berkley and GISS do to all their data.
UAH compares like to like as anomalies, where is the problem in that?
RLH, The UAH processing I described above is applied at the grid point level before the anomalies are calculated. And what do you mean by a “like to like” comparison?
Basically UAH compares something measured in a particular way this month with the data for the same month measured in same way over a period of 30 years.
Even if there were any problems with the individual calculation, then as the same processes are caried out on each month, then the anomaly result would be free from error.
Much the same as if a thermometer was incorrectly calibrated, as many have pointed out before, the anomaly would show the same anomaly difference regardless.
I am not sure you are using the methodology that v6 uses in any case. Ask Roy.
I accept that there will be some variance as the time intervals between sweeps do produce some sampling problems but that is quite different to what you claim.
RLH, if you are replying to my post, I am “using the methodology that v6 uses…” as one may see by reading their background paper.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/APJAS-2016-UAH-Version-6-Global-Satellite-Temperature-Products-for-blog-post.pdf
My point is still that the UAH LT is not measured data, it’s a fabricated product constructed from three other time series which are produced (in part) via the scheme I described above.
You still fail to understand that the LT is intended as a correction for the MT resulting from contamination by input from higher pressure levels. The Stratosphere is known to be cooling, thus the MT understates the long term trends which appear in lower levels in the atmosphere. The LT computation is is based on theoretical model calculations of the signals received by the three channels used to compute the LT.
Your comment about “some variance as the time intervals between sweeps” is pointless, demonstrating how little you understand.
ES: You obviously have a long standing disagreement with UAH. Despite having quite a reasonable explanation of their methodology (as above).
If you do not understand why time is a critical component of sampling the globe then I cannot help you further.
RLH, You did not define what you meant by the phrase “the time intervals between sweeps”. Perhaps you are referring to the effects of orbit decay for satellites lacking orbit station keeping, which is a well known problem and each group uses different approaches to correct the data for changes in LECT.
Your lack of precision in this comment displays again that you continue to be unaware of the history of the science going back almost 40 years, which makes it difficult to discuss things.
ES: There is a time interval between satellites passing overhead. Sampling at discreet time intervals is well covered by Nyquist. If a weather system were to move (or cloud cover to alter) between the 2 passes, then the measurement made will be uncertain dependent on the changes. Taking many samples and averaging them reduces this effect but does not alter the individual readings uncertainty.
Temperature does NOT conform to a normal distribution on yearly or hourly data yet climate scientists’ still use those statistics that are only really suitable for normal data use. It is not unusual for the SD of temperature data to be only 1.5 SD (or thereabouts) for the whole range, not just the central portion. That’s what a U shaped distribution (quasi-sinusoidal) does to your statistics.
https://climatedatablog.files.wordpress.com/2021/09/53927_stillwater_5-wnw_profile.jpg
RLH, Your comment about times of measurements applies even more strongly to the MSU/AMSU data. The ground track crosses the Equator twice an orbit, once on the day side and once on the night side. Trouble is, for a tropical or mid-latitude location, for a day time pass location at some longitude, there is no equivalent night time pass over the same longitude 12 hours later. Also, there is some area in between the widths of the ground tracks which is not covered. The result is that there may be only 1 measurement per day at a nadir location and some will have none.
The UAH scheme of binning the individual scan positions into a group of stacked grids, then combining these at individual grid locations means that the final monthly data combines off the nadir values from different days than those for the positions nearest nadir. Furthermore, this scheme can only produce monthly results, not daily information. Since you are complaining about assuming Gaussian statistics with normal distributions, do tell us what sort of statistics fit the UAH scheme.
ES: Tell what statistics you would use for a U shaped distribution and why.
RLH, Your graph above says nothing as I have no clue what variable is plotted or how it was processed by you. The title of the graph looks like some data from Stillwater, OK. It’s well know that individual stations have lots of variance. Of course, by answering to my comments with a graph you don’t bother to respond to my questions.
https://www.richmond.ca/services/rdws/dikes.htm
I can imagine the debate in Richmond regarding the dyke improvements.
People like yourself saying that the existing dykes had never been overtopped and were therefore high enough.
“Alarmists” saying that more extreme weather was coming and the dykes needed to be higher.
The “Alarmists” were right.
It does look rather a mess.
https://www.richmond-news.com/local-news/multiple-roads-closed-in-richmond-due-to-flooding-4760491
Lulu Island, which is where Richmond is located, is an island in Fraser River delta. It should be prone to flooding.
The dykes got built to protect Richmond from the Spring Freshet. Every 50 years or so there is a major flood event on the Fraser.
I’m not aware the current flooding in Richmond is due to dykes being overtopped. The flooding is due to rain that has nowhere to go.
Same old devil’s bargain.
Dykes protect against external flooding but stop rainwater draining away.
For that you need pumps.
The classic examples are the Netherlands and the Fens in England. I grew up in the Fans surrounded by windmills that once pumped water. Nowadays the pumps are electric.
I notice that the locals have a project in hand to raise the Richmond dykes. Someone is expecting higher freshets.
The Province has told coastal cities to zone so that no one is allowed to build within 1 meter elevation above sea level on the basis of climate model projections. A lot of communities are taking advantage of the situation to improve their defenses against flooding that has always been a problem. Its not higher freshets; the flood freshet depends on weather conditions that cause higher than normal melt during the freshet period. The bugbear used to convince taxpayers is the threat of sea level rise; 1 meter by 2100. Meanwhile the tide gauge data doesn’t support the alarmism.
One can look at recent “infrastructure bill”,
How much is actually for infrastructure? Things like dikes or dredging something also counts, as do roads, power transmission, even stuff to prevent forest fires, one can count as infrastructure. And almost anything to do with the improvement of parks/governmental controlled lands/rivers.
Ken
” The bugbear used to convince taxpayers is the threat of sea level rise; 1 meter by 2100. Meanwhile the tide gauge data doesnt support the alarmism. ”
I think it’s not the first time you write that, and maybe it’s not the first time I reply this way.
I have nothing to do with alarmism: I look at the data as it is.
People naming me an alarmist are dumbasses.
*
You should (re?)read this document, made by quite serious people:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-ilhh3ov20tfb03P5ZKDHTzZuJ9rD4P8/view
They did not solely consider gauge data, but ocean currents as well, for example. Their average is a composite of several sources.
The PSMSL tide gauge source was of course processed together with vertical land movement data, in order to eliminate factors like subsidence and glacial isostatic rebound.
Their evaluation stops on end of 2015. It’s a pity that they couldn’t join again for an update till now.
Dangendorf’s evaluation is very well comparable with satellite altimetry data, which started in 1993:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1nsa7ByOgWKtwkh05FrdP970ZS3_LeK2Q/view
What many people don’t consider is that sea level rise is not linear. Its trend in Dangendorf’s data is about 1.4 mm/yr for 1900-2015, but it grows when you look at more recent periods: 1.9 for 1960-2015, and 2.8 for 1993-2015.
There is a tiny acceleration in the data which becomes visible when you load it into a spreadsheet, and let the calculator compute its quadratic fit:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1v0GrfjVrHM-NoYLuTigvTcnWxNm_OdXE/view
The quadratic factors look ridiculous, but when you evaluate the fits for 100 years, you obtain a rise of
– 49 cm for satellite altimetry
– 56 cm for Dangendorf
– 64 cm for a pure PSMSL tide gauge evaluation made by Grant Foster in 2019.
Dangendorf is in the middle of the three.
*
Furthermore, what people mostly do not consider as well is that these 56 cm are the average of worldwide several hundred gauges available AND suitable for a fair evaluation.
All these gauges show sometimes highly different linear trends indicating negative, stable or positive rise.
This means that while numerous gauges will show an acceleration leading to a rise far below the 56 cm average, others might well show the inverse.
Maybe it would be interesting to compute the quadratic fit for each gauge separately.
*
I agree with you that many things are extremely overestimated and hence misrepresented in the press.
The (re)insurance companies also have great interest in magnifying the estimates, in order to prepare insurance increase for all clients concerned with sea level rise.
Fueling Change
Oil and gas will be in the global energy system ‘for decades,’ BP chief says
“Oil giant BP is committed to tackling climate change, the companys CEO said… BP’s Chief Executive Bernard Looney told CNBC on Monday.”
It fits….
Getting an early start to another day of trolling I see.
Yes, you are. But I always get a good laugh at the nonsense you provide.
Thanks.
You are the one who trolls nonsense.
A large ‘woke’ investor triggered a vote to transform BP into a green energy company. It no longer is an oil giant except that it has at least 7 years worth of oil projects producing oil. The stock price has since dropped by a half.
Its not trolling; simply sad truth. The ‘greenies’ are trying to wreck the oil companies by interfering with funding from banks and by trying to change the oil companies from within.
Blackrock is an investor in Exxon and managed to force Exxon to put two ‘greenies’ on the board.
Its serious because it impacts gas prices and the stock price.
Ken at 10:03 AM
A couple of comments regarding BP:
“A large ‘woke’ investor triggered a vote to transform BP into a green energy company.”
BP’s “transformation” began in early 2002 when then CEO Lord John Browne announced “We need to reinvent the energy business…”We need to go beyond petroleum” pledging to hold emissions constant. Now, almost 20 years later, it is clear that it is executing on that plan.
“It no longer is an oil giant”
I don’t know how you gauge an oil company’s wherewithal, but on daily [barrels] production BP is a behemoth;
Saudi Aramco (Saudi Arabia): 9,200,000
Rosneft (Russia): 4,100,000
PetroChina (China): 2,525,500
Petrobras (Brazil): 2,266,000
BP: 1,992,000
Chevron: 1,867,000
Shell: 1,752,000
ExxonMobil: 1,403,000
A realist tries to calm the braindead cult idiots.
Realist: Don’t be afraid, the sky is not falling.
**********
RLH: Have you never heard of rain?
Entropic man: So, when an airplane crashes into your house, you won’t be afraid?
Norman: Throw a rock in the air, stupid. Does it fall back? I have linked you to rocks, stupid. Read a science textbook. Why are you so stupid?
bobdroege: Why do you think they make hardhats, you fool?
Tim Folkerts: If the sky is not falling, what’s it doing?
Nate: What Tim said.
Ball4: The sky is falling more or less than more or less.
Willard: Haven’t you ever heard of the movie “Skyfall”?
E. Swanson: You must be one of those “Risers”. The sky is always rising over your flat earth.
TYSON MCGUFFIN: We only have a few years left. We’ve got to take action now!
RLH: “The sky is not falling” is only relevant if the sky is not falling.
Bindidon: Do you never and never deny the work of great scientists! Translated from the original: One morning, as Henny-Penny was plucking worms in the henyard, an acorn dropped from a tree right onto her head! She had no idea what had hit her, however, and so she started shouting:
“The sky is falling! The sky is falling!”
Do you now deny, denigrate, and distort what the great scientist Henny-Penny teaches?
The important bit is about how there is always a fox waiting to take advantage of the gullible.
But who is the fox and who are the gullible?
Clint R is an idiot who makes up much of what he ‘quotes’ Like (all?) the above.
Clint R
Closer to the truth:
Clint R offers his untested, unproven and unsupported opinions.
Realist: Clint R you are wrong here is why.
Clint R. You are a braindead cult idiot!
Going Further from the mind of Clint R
“I am the great an genius Clint R. You inferior idiots cannot make up the science I do but if you do not blindly accept all I claim true you are a braindead cult idiot (trust me).”
“I do not read textbooks, I do not believe in logical thinking or evidence of any kind. Evidence only means the poster cannot understand a link provided. No one can ever convince my opinions are not absolute truth”
“I am master of strawman attack! None dare question me or I will fry you with ice cubes and strike your head with a whirling ball on a string. I will smash your hand with a hammer and whirl a ball on a string. Then I will burn any textbook that disagrees with my opinions with ice cubes.”
Norman, quantity is NOT quality.
Try for just ONE sentence that matches reality.
I won’t hold my breath.
Clint R
You are not interested in reality. Only your opinions.
Since you pretend, now, to want reality. Tell me what evidence or source do you have to show that radiant energy from a cold body will not be absorbed by a hotter body?
At this time we have experimental evidence it does. We have well established physics equations (you call bogus for with no counter evidence, only you opinion) “q = ε σ (Th4 – Tc4) Ah” showing that the temperature of a cold object reduces the amount of NET energy a hotter object loses. We also have Roy Spencer himself with experimental evidence this is the case.
At this time you have your opinions. I have valid science. On the balance scale what do you think intelligent people will choose?
Norman, that’s NOT one sentence. I’m not going to get in any more keyboard exercises with idiots. One sentence, one topic. If you can’t learn, that just proves me right.
Clint R
Exactly why do you think anyone should follow your commands?
You choose to ignore what you can’t answer and pretend intelligence by diverting to something else. Weak!
Defend your opinions. That is the request. You have not done so in all the time you have been on this blog. Why should I expect you to do so now?
Norman, if you could think for yourself, you would realize that that comment was just your opinions. And when it wasn’t your opinions, it was falsehoods.
You always claim that I don’t understand the relevant science. I have asked you for just one example where I got the physics or thermodynamics wrong. You can’t provide even one example, that you can stand by.
The fact is, it is YOU that has no background in physics or thermo. That’s why when you find links, they don’t fit, and they prove your incompetence.
I’ve learned enough about you and your cult in the last year to know not to waste any time trying to help you. You can’t learn. You are perfectly content believing that ice cubes can boil water.
If I don’t respond, it is because you offered nothing but your invalid opinions, false accusations, or immature insults.
Clint R claims someone has no background in Physics.
Man, that is some rich soup.
Tastes like E coli.
Clint R
YOU: “You always claim that I don’t understand the relevant science. I have asked you for just one example where I got the physics or thermodynamics wrong. You can’t provide even one example, that you can stand by.”
I have done it many many times but you always reject the evidence. How is it possible to give you one example when you reject it.
YOU: “The fact is, it is YOU that has no background in physics or thermo. That’s why when you find links, they don’t fit, and they prove your incompetence.”
I actually have taken college courses in physics. My links fit you can never dispute the data or evidence. You merely blanket the link with the comment “You don’t understand the link”. You provide zero evidence of your point nor do you explain at all what is incorrect with the link. You just move on with more of your opinions rejecting anything that disagrees with you.
YOUR last statement is exactly what you do all the time: “If I don’t respond, it is because you offered nothing but your invalid opinions, false accusations, or immature insults.”
You constantly insult every poster you disagree with. You only offer opinions never facts or data, you make false accusations about posters frequently. Why do you accuse others of doing what you do constantly? If you don’t like this then quit doing it yourself. Stop All of your immature insults (which are many just read your posts) offer facts and data and NOT your opinions (like the blanket statement Fluxes don’t add…they can and they do maybe not in all cases but you make a general statement with zero evidence to support it and others have repeatedly demonstrated this is a false opinion and not scientific).
As I mentioned Norman, you’re unable to present even one instance where I have the physics wrong.
The rest of your comment is just your usual “invalid opinions, false accusations, or immature insults”.
I’ll have “the Moon has no angular momentum” salad.
PS Norman, you never did tell me where you hid that “real 255K surface”….
Try top of the atmosphere Clint R.
Is that not a “real” enough surface for you?
Define “top of atmosphere”, braindead bob.
What altitude are you referring to? There are several definitions. NASA typically uses 100km (62 miles). Is that the definition you want to use?
Did I specify a specific altitude?
Is that what you want, a specific altitude?
Clint R
YOU: “PS Norman, you never did tell me where you hid that “real 255K surface”….”
Yeah I actually did.
Here is what it looks like:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Vitali-Tatartchenko/publication/259531096/figure/fig2/AS:297086416375813@1447842329577/From-Hasler-et-al-2003-internet-site-Earth-image-at-the-infrared-wavelength-of-67-m.png
Does the link work for you?
That is what a radiating surface looks like. If you did not know this fact, the atmosphere is not a solid so it will not have a few micron thick radiating surface like many solids do but it will still have a radiating surface that looks like the image. The average of this surface has a brightness temperature of 255 K.
I cannot help you more if you are not able to grasp this. You have to be willing to invest some thinking on your part.
Braindead bob comes up empty, again!
He spouted off like his cult brothers, Ball4 and Norman. And ended up producing the same as they did — NOTHING.
Nice try Norman, but no banana.
That’s an infrared image, which tells you NOTHING.
But you seem to be backing away from your claim of a “real 255K surface”. You see, there is NO such thing. It’s a figment of your cult’s imagination. There is no “real 255K surface”. Braindead4 claimed there is, and you fell for it. Why don’t you ever fall for reality?
Clint R writes “there is NO such thing” because Clint R doesn’t know basic climate physics and can’t find the existing earthen real 255K surface & its altitude where measured despite being given ample clues.
Clint R
The image tells you all you need it is the Earth’s radiating surface.
When you look at the image it does not matter where in the atmosphere the IR is being emitted to space, the radiating surface is the totality of emission to space.
There is a real radiating surface. It will not be a solid surface but it will still fit the definition of surface:
“the outside part or uppermost layer of something (often used when describing its texture, form, or extent).”
The radiating surface is the uppermost layer of the radiating surface which you see in the image. The average radiant energy from this radiating surface is 240 W/m^2 which gives a brightness temperature of 255 K.
If you calculated the average from images like this one you arrive at the 240 W/m^2 emission.
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/images/best-of-ceres/lw_son_180.png
Clint R
YOU: “As I mentioned Norman, youre unable to present even one instance where I have the physics wrong.”
Here is one:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-945086
Maybe if I get bored I will look for more. You usually do not state much physics. I think the majority of your posts are telling people they are brain dead cult idiots but you rarely offer any proof that this assertion is valid.
Braindead Norman believes the “real 255K surface” is anything he wants it to be.
Braindead4 still claims there is a “real 255K surface”, but he doesn’t know where it is.
And braindead bob believes it’s TOA, but he can’t commit to what altitude that is.
That ain’t science!
Nope Clint R, I & others know where the earthen real 255K surface is measured, it is you that doesn’t know – we’ll all let you know when you discover it.
Clint R,
You are not asking a meaningful question, as all the radiation that balances at the top of the atmosphere doesn’t come from the same altitude, so asking for a specific altitude ain’t science either.
Usually it is expected that one has at least a BS before he has credibility to determine what and what is not science.
It seems you fail to meet that requirement.
At least I have a liberal arts degree.
That’s not showing where my physics was wrong, Norman. You just linked to a site you can’t understand.
Adding more molecules that emit to space means there will be more emission to space!
That’s not even very involved physics. It’s basic “common-sense”. Being braindead you won’t know about common-sense.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Now bob and Norman are both backing away from an actual “surface”. And Braindead4 has no clue.
Could you 3 idiots at least agree your magic “real 255K surface” is hiding somewhere between Earth’s actual surface and NASA’s TOA?
The real earthen 255K surface is not hiding Clint R so even you could find it with some reliable research.
Clint R
I will attempt to explain it to you. Silence your own view a minute and engage with your mind.
The Earth surface, at around 288 K average, would emit around 390 W/m^2. With no atmosphere or a lack of GHG present this amount of energy would go directly to space.
With our current atmosphere the amount of energy going directly to space from the surface is around 40 W/m^2 all the rest of that 390 W/m^2 is absorbed by GHG. None of this reaches space directly. The GHG emit energy at a much lower rate as they emit at cooler temperatures. The more Carbon Dioxide you add the higher its emitting surface to space becomes and it is emitting at even colder levels so (as I pointed out clearly with the MODTRAN model) the more CO2 added the less IR that will leave until a new balance is arrived at which means a hotter surface so that the Outgoing IR is the same as before. It is the forcing concept they use.
https://paos.colorado.edu/~fasullo/pjw_class/images/spect.lw.jpg
This is the type of spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation you get. The energy emitted by the CO2 to space is from cold regions. The IR emitted by CO2 in layers below does not matter much for an energy balance as it is emitted and absorbed continuously. Only that IR leaving or returning to the surface has an effect on energy balance.
Nice diversionary ramble, Norman. You and Braindead4 haven’t identified the
“real 255K surface”. And braindead bob appears to have wandered off.
Could you 3 idiots at least agree your magic “real 255K surface” is hiding somewhere between Earth’s actual surface and NASA’s TOA?
It’s not hiding anywhere Clint R.
Wrong Braindead4. You ARE hiding. You’re hiding from reality. You hide behind your screen name. You hide the fact that you don’t know where your “real 255K surface” is.
You can’t face reality.
I know where it is Clint; it’s you that continually admits not knowing its location. That can be changed with reliable study.
These 3 cult idiots cannot identify their “real 255K surface”. They can’t even agree it’s in the atmosphere!
The “real 255K surface” is NOT real. It is an imaginary sphere. It is one of the perversions of science that makes up the AGW nonsense. It doesn’t exist.
It is an imaginary sphere in Clint’s imagination; the real Earth system is what is measured to obtain Te 255K.
That “surface” changing into a “system” makes it even harder for you to find, huh Braindead4?
Clint R,
“That “surface” changing into a “system” makes it even harder for you to find, huh Braindead4?”
It never was a radiating “surface”
Clint R
Your babbling comments are not very logical or good.
I have shown you what a radiating surface looks like. It would be the infrared image of Earth. That you think it needs some specific altitude is a poor argument, even by your standards.
You could just as well say the solid Earth has no surface because it has tall mountains and deep canyons. What altitude is the Earth’s surface? Does it have one? I guess if you don’t have some specific altitude your logical thought is than any surface is imaginary and does not exist. Is this what you are claiming?
Since the Earth does not have a specific altitude for its surface do you then conclude it has none?
You see clearly an image of the radiating surface and what it looks like and you claim it is not real. Is that because it is not solid? Does water then have a surface? It is changing all the time with different altitudes based upon wave height so does that mean there is no sea surface? Hmm. I think you are making an extremely poor attempt at a point. Not sure anyone logical would agree with your faulty conclusions.
The Earth has a very distinct radiating surface that can be captured in an image. Why do you believe this image is imaginary? What prompts this conclusion?
Clint R
YOU: “Braindead Norman believes the real 255K surface is anything he wants it to be.”
Okay, you are insulting and an idiot. I am not saying this at all.
I am saying you have an IR image of Earth from space. The spherical object you see is the radiating surface of the Earth. It is NOT anything I want it to be. Don’t know why you have to post such stupid things all the time.
Also:
YOU: “Adding more molecules that emit to space means there will be more emission to space!
Thats not even very involved physics. Its basic common-sense. Being braindead you wont know about common-sense.”
That is not common sense or intelligent. More molecules alone does not have to mean more emission to space. The temperature is a very critical component you are not even considering. Your common-sense is quite poor. If you add more molecules that are colder they can emit less to space than fewer molecules at a higher temperature.
Also science is not based upon “common-sense”. Common-sense is often wrong. Science is evidence based. I have given you much evidence you are wrong. You reject this and then say I have never shown your physics to be wrong. I do prove it wrong, you can’t accept the evidence. What is one to do when evidence has no weight, it seems only your opinion of what you think is correct is correct. No one can alter your closed mind in that condition. You do not even entertain the possibility you can be wrong.
Norman, the reason you ramble so much is because you’ve got NOTHING.
Even braindead bob is backing away from your cult nonsense: “It never was a radiating ‘surface'”
And of course Braindead4 continues to babble incoherently.
Your “real 255K surface” doesn’t exist if you can’t identify it. If you believe it’s just a layer in the atmosphere, not a “real” surface, then what is its altitude.
You’ve got NOTHING.
No Clint R,
I am not backing away, I am just pointing out that you are attacking a straw man, do you need a bigger machete?
Some of the radiation that makes up the 255 effective temperature comes from the surface, some from the atmosphere, some from reflection of clouds, etcetera.
As usual, you think you are smarter than you really are.
Sorry bob, but “it never was a radiating surface” is backing away from your cult nonsense.
Your cult believes in a “real 255K surface”. Just ask Ball4 and Norman.
Clint R,
Now you are playing DREMPTY’s game.
Just because it may appear that I disagree with other posters doesn’t mean that you are correct.
Just like the Moon appears to rotate, maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t, but the bottom line is you are likely wrong.
Maybe you should email Trenberth and tell him he is wrong.
Clint R,
Again, it never was a “surface”
“The earth-atmosphere energy balance is the balance between incoming energy from the Sun and outgoing energy from the Earth. Energy released from the Sun is emitted as shortwave light and ultraviolet energy. When it reaches the Earth, some is reflected back to space by clouds, some is absorbed by the atmosphere, and some is absorbed at the Earth’s surface.”
That’s from https://www.weather.gov/jetstream/energy
There’s a shocking error in that, but the balance is not from a surface of Earth and a surface of the Sun.
Balance of energy from the Sun, and energy emitted from Earth.
No surfaces on either one.
It’s not a game, bob. You are wrong. Both my stalker and Tim are on record as arguing that “rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis” is motion as per the “moon on the left” in the below gif, and not 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
They just also argue that the MOTL can be described as translating in a circle plus rotating on its own axis. Do you understand? “Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis”, and “translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis” are two different motions.
bob, the fact that I have to explain the issue to you is another indication of how braindead you are.
The “33K” is bogus because it comes from comparing real to imaginary. The 255K is calculated from an imaginary sphere. Your cult brother, Ball4, claims that there is a “real 255K surface”. But, when I asked him where that is, he started throwing up smoke. You and Norman joined in, trying to protect your collapsing cult.
The “33K” is bogus. Ball4 is a braindead cult idiot, and you can’t even stay up with the conversation!
Clint R,
No it is not real to imaginary, it’s real to real.
Measured to measured.
Clint R is still looking and having to ask where the earthen 255K is measured. Something that can be measured is real Clint, you can find out about it and obtain the answer you seek with just a little effort of reliable research.
DREMPTY,
“Its not a game, bob. You are wrong.”
Maybe not, but you are playing games.
“Both my stalker and Tim are on record as arguing that rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis is motion as per the moon on the left in the below gif, and not motion as per the moon on the right.”
It’s not done by consensus, don’t you deniers know that?
And I believe you are lying about their position, anyway.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Tidal_locking_of_the_Moon_with_the_Earth.gif
“They just also argue that the MOTL can be described as translating in a circle plus rotating on its own axis.”
You get something correct here, but that contradicts what you just said they said, which confirms that you are lying.
“Do you understand? Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis, and translation in a circle with no rotation about an internal axis are two different motions.”
I guess not, because that’s the crux of the biscuit, isn’t it?
I’ll just put it this way, rotation about an external axis is the same as translation in a circle, whether or not the object is rotating on its axis is a different question.
DREMT 1:01pm, for “my stalker” and Tim F. or any other commenter, use their words on record not DREMT’s words.
Everything I said is correct and true, bob.
… but what DREMT wrote doesn’t accurately reflect what “my stalker” or Tim F. wrote as “correct and true” because DREMT didn’t use their recorded written words.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-949521
DREMPTY,
Why the hell do you post shit that clearly shows you are lying?
Tim said, to me:
“So the “moon on the left” can equally well be described as
a) rotating about a stationary external axis (you are correct)
b) translating about a circle and rotating about its own axis (another correct description.)
Likewise. the ‘moon on the right’ can equally well be described as
a) rotating about a stationary external axis while rotating *backwards* about its own axis.
b) translating in a circle (with no rotation about any axis).”
Which confirms everything I explained to you, bob. Obviously Tim still thinks the moon rotates on its own axis. I am not arguing otherwise. It is just that he recognizes that the MOTL can be described as rotating about an external axis without rotating about an internal axis.
DREMPTY,
Show me where Time said this
“rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis is motion as per the moon on the left”
Read what I quoted. It is option a) for the MOTL! Keep in mind I had just said:
“Just remember, rotation about an external with no rotation about an internal axis is motion as per the “moon on the left”; not the “moon on the right”, as you erroneously believe.”
in the previous comment. Then Tim said:
“So the “moon on the left” can equally well be described as
a) rotating about a stationary external axis (you are correct)”
Note the “you are correct”. Compare option a) for the MOTL with option a) for the MOTR. Then look at the option b) for both. It is obvious what is being said.
DREMT, that’s better; Tim is telling you in his own words that ref. frames matter as all motion is relative. As I’ve written before, both non-spinners and spinners are correct depending on frame of reference chosen i.e wrt to which object.
Ball4, read through the discussion, and open that mind of yours.
Yeah Right DREMPTY,
But then Tim immediately said this
“translating about a circle and rotating about its own axis (another correct description.)”
Which contradicts your statement that he said this
rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis is motion as per the moon on the left
He’s not with you on the Moon is not rotating about its axis.
So that means you are a LSOS.
He is not with me on saying that the moon does not rotate on its own axis, no. I already said that.
He is with me on saying that the MOTL can be described as rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis. He just also pointed out that it can be described as translation in a circle, with a rotation about an internal axis. It is not a contradiction, it is just two separate ways of describing the same motion. There are two different ways of describing the motion of the MOTR, too. One of them involving the MOTR rotating on its own axis. Let me know when you are up to speed.
DREMT, it is just two separate ways of describing the same motion wrt two different objects using different ref. frames.
For example, your hobby horse fixed to mgr is not rotating on its own axis wrt to the mgr but hobby horse IS rotating wrt to the room in which the mgr is contained – two separate ways of describing the same motion.
Both ways are correct when the writer specifies wrt to which object & you and others fail to do so creating 3+ years of useless but entertaining debate.
I understand and appreciate your confusion, but no. It is two different ways of describing the same motion, one involving rotation about an external axis, and one involving translation in a circle.
As Tim’s words pointed out to DREMT and DREMT now agrees: it really is two different ways of describing the same motion.
I had written pretty much exactly what Tim wrote, about the a) and b) for the MOTL and the MOTR, months before he finally did.
Here is an example from back in January this year, for motion like the MOTL:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-590393
“He just also pointed out that it can be described as translation in a circle, with a rotation about an internal axis. It is not a contradiction, it is just two separate ways of describing the same motion.”
And yet, DREMT has always been adamant that only one of these ways is correct!
My stalker never could follow a discussion.
Yes, Nate, DREMT writes: “(Tim) is not with me on saying that the moon does not rotate on its own axis”.
Then DREMT agrees with Tim “pretty much” that “a) a translation plus axial rotation” is one of at least two ways to describe our moon’s motion.
DREMT obviously changed stories when Tim called out DREMT being wrong. Inertially, our moon is doing curvilinear translation about R and axial rotation about its own r once per orbit of Earth just like DREMT now “pretty much” agrees in writing a).
"DREMT obviously changed stories when Tim called out DREMT being wrong."
I changed nothing. As I proved at 12:42 PM, I had written out the two options for describing the motion of the MOTL months before Tim.
"Inertially, our moon is doing curvilinear translation about R and axial rotation about its own r once per orbit of Earth"
Inertially, our moon is doing rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
"Orbital motion without axial rotation" is motion as per the MOTL, not the MOTR, which is the issue settler.
I was talking to & agreeing with Nate.
I pointed out to Nate that DREMT changed from “He is not with me on saying that the moon does not rotate on its own axis” to moon motion is “a) a translation plus axial rotation” “pretty much” now agreeing with Tim.
It doesn’t matter what you respond now DREMT, the record shows DREMT changed to “pretty much” agree with Tim on a) which is what Nate is also pointing out. Let’s see if Nate responds.
Ball4 can’t follow a discussion either.
This discussion was about bob’s inability to understand that the MOTL can be described as not rotating on its own axis. I pointed out to him that Tim (and my stalker) are on record as agreeing that the MOTL can be described as rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis. He is in denial of that fact. He is in denial about a lot of things.
As is Ball4.
Again, I was talking to Nate.
What DREMT writes now doesn’t matter – can’t change the record.
The record shows that Tim agrees with me. I wrote the two options for the MOTL first (and elsewhere I had written the two options for the MOTR), later on Tim wrote it all out as if he was "teaching" something.
Kinematically, there are two ways to describe the motion of the MOTL, one of which involves it rotating on its own axis, and one of which doesn’t. This no more supports the "Spinners" than it does the "Non-Spinners". The two options transcend reference frames, so that proves Ball4 wrong. That there is an option in which the MOTL is not rotating on its own axis proves bob wrong.
That there are such a thing as "orbital poles" shows that astronomy thinks of "orbital motion without axial rotation" as a rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis, i.e. motion like the MOTL. No orbital rotation, no orbital axis, no orbital poles.
The "orbital motion without axial rotation is a translation" crowd need to wake up to that fact.
Nate 6:44pm, I agree, Tim did confirm for DREMT “there are two ways to describe the motion of the MOTL” & DREMT now agrees “pretty much” to add that our moon’s motion inertially is “a) a translation plus axial rotation” which is correct on R and its own r in the inertial frame.
DREMT is no longer adamant that only one of these ways is correct after Tim’s advice.
Tim followed my advice that there are two ways of describing the motion of the MOTL, and both sides of this debate are still of course adamant that "their way" is correct.
Nate, I observe now DREMT writing one of two ways is our moon’s motion is “a) a translation plus axial rotation”. So DREMT now agrees one way is our moon rotates on its own axis and thus abandons 9:17 am adamantly writing our “moon does not rotate on its own axis”.
This is astronomical progress on DREMT’s part and Tim helped DREMT confirm that progress.
According to Ball4, something written back in January of this year is only "now" happening. And no, I haven’t changed my position one iota. "Orbital motion without axial rotation" is motion as per the MOTL, not the MOTR. "Orbital motion without axial rotation" is "rotation about an external axis, with no rotation about an internal axis". Those who want to believe that "orbital motion without axial rotation" is "translation, with no rotation about an internal axis", need to reconcile their belief with the existence of "orbital poles", amongst other things.
Yes Nate 6:44pm, DREMT has changed: from being adamant our “moon does not rotate on its own axis” to writing in agreement with Tim as early as January: “there are two ways to describe the motion of the MOTL…a) a translation plus axial rotation” in agreement being one of the two ways.
Nothing has changed. Ball4 was a troll back then, and he’s still trolling now.
REMINDER
When all seems lost, contrarians can always rely on their rally call:
https://climateball.net/but-cagw/
” Has not occurred to alarmists that there is little or no Sun for several months in winter, hence the Arctic freezes. ”
One more time, such a dumb, stubborn statement. No wonder: it was written by a pseudoengineer who proudly told us “Newton was wrong concerning the Moon”.
*
Has not occurred to ignorant dumbies that there are, near and above the Arctic, more and more
– warm ocean currents at the surface
and
– warm poleward advection streams in the troposphere
coming from the Tropics even during the winter, hence the Arctic freezes less and less.
It doesn’t help to always look at the end of the sea ice data, and to say: ” Look, it increases this year! “, because it did several times during the last 70 years:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jAiaGWYF2FHmjQDI7BjjwlbdwH3BKeIK/view
Yes! There is (luckily) more sea ice in the Arctic this year, 2021 passed the mean of 2016-2020 for both the recovery and the melting periods:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/10qA6klNnFn_bo1DNOQZrPPa0fzWSvRYG/view
*
With these graphs, I don’t show more or less warming, let alone whether or not CO2 had to do with it.
I just wanted to show that the Arctic sea levels have nothing to do with the Sun’s activity during the winter.
But wait… in one week, one month, six months or a year, the ignoramus-in-chief will post again and again:
” Has not occurred to alarmists that there is little or no Sun for several months in winter, hence the Arctic freezes. ”
*
Poor Robertson. He currently behaves exactly as did Kurt, the uncle of my [sockpuppet] lady Rose… 12 years ago.
He endlessly, aggressively repeated day after day the same stuff.
But today Kurt quietly looks into the distance, lost in thought and in silence.
Updating ENSO advice from 4 monitoring bodies in order of commitment to a la Nina forecast.
The Tokyo Climate Centre relies on SSTs from the NINO3 region, with their threshold at +/- 0.5C over 6 consecutive 5 month averages for el Nino/la Nina. They say that la Nina ‘conditions’ are present (current SSTs < 0.5C), giving it a 60% chance that these conditions will hold long enough to call a full la Nina.
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/outlook.html
The Australian BoM is on la Nina 'alert', saying that conditions are not yet met, but 70% likely will be in the coming months. BoM has a higher bar for ENSO events than other agencies using sea surface temperatures as the metric: consistent sea surface temperatures of 0.8C above/below average in the NINO3.4 region for several months. The full suite of criteria for ENSO thresholds are here.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/outlook/
NOAA have called a la Nina in progress. Curiously, the data they give does not match their own threshold for calling a la Nina – 5 consecutive 3-month running mean SSTs less than -0.5C in the NINO3.4 region. Currently they are showing only 2 consecutive 3-month running means that meet the threshold, and their next most recent advice has pertained to then-current neutral conditions.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
The MEI (multivariate ENSO index) index uses a range of indicators to calculate ENSO. MEI has an ongoing la Nina for the last 17 months.
https://psl.noaa.gov/enso/mei/ (click on ‘MEI.v2 Values’ to see their index)
barry now forecasting La Nina when we are in the middle of it
You should get together with Bindidong and start a company forecasting yesterday’s weather
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/biased-media-reporting-on-the-new-santer-et-al-study-regarding-satellite-tropospheric-temperature-trends/#comment-726374
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/06/biased-media-reporting-on-the-new-santer-et-al-study-regarding-satellite-tropospheric-temperature-trends/#comment-727447
Eben
You can show off here with your forecast hobby as long as you want.
You still don’t consider how unpredictable these NINO3+4 forecasts are, depending on their initial conditions.
And with such highly variable data you want to predict anything?
1. IC 27 Oct – 05 Nov
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd2/nino34Sea.gif
2. IC 06 Nov – 15 Nov
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Sea.gif
Your arrogant tone is nothing more than nonsense, Eben.
LOL predictions are hard , especially about the future
https://i.postimg.cc/kGwYK9H9/yogi-berra-photo-quote-1.jpg
And just like that, Bindidong and Dingle-berry are now La Nina forecasters. They must have been studying hard in the last six month
https://i.postimg.cc/6qBCrZs4/5t6blu.jpg
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-1006097
So, going thru threads. And:
–Clint R says:
November 14, 2021 at 9:19 PM
Well no Folkerts, everything is NOT the same.
Moon has a linear velocity vector that is different from Earths. So, it depends on where Moon is in its orbit when Earth disappears. If Moon is moving toward Sun, then the resultant would be to move Moon to a lower orbit. And guess what, the resultant vector does not go away. Moon keeps moving to lower and lower orbits.–
It’s easier {less velocity needed} to leave the solar system, than hit the sun.
The Moon might get as far as Mars or Venus, but it would return to Earth distance from the sun.
Venus has slightly less delta-v needed to reach in Hohmann transfer- you add velocity to get to Mars distance {which will return to Earth distance {and certainly if one doesn’t get close to planet Mars- and window to do this happens every 2.1 years {very low chance leave at right time {within say couple week time period within period of 2.1 times 52 = 109.2 weeks, so in about 1 in fifty chance {at best}. With the odds really against you, you might be able to bounce off planet {gravity assist} and hit the sun, but odds favor, getting ejected out of solar system, or hit planet, rather than hit the sun. There also a good chance of not doing Hohmann type transfer, and therefore not going as far as to Venus or Mars distance.
[btw: Non Hohmann transfers are ways to get quicker to Venus or Mars but they require more delta-v to reach this distances- Hohmann is the least delta-v needed. The only argument is that one somehow gets gravity assist from some mass which might be Earth itself, that in “some way” it is disappearing.
An interesting question is you are in LEO, you can easily hit Earth’s atmosphere with hohmann, but what if shoot bullet directly at Earth or away from Earth [straight up or down} where does bullet go- that would be a “non-hohmann transfer”.]
“The Moon might get as far as Mars or Venus, but it would return to Earth distance from the sun.”
That is being too generous. The moon’s orbital speed around the earth is ~ 3% of the earth’s orbital speed around the sun. This would only be a minor perturbation to the overall orbit orbit if the earth ‘disappeared’.
But it is still a WY better answer than Clint’s answers that the moon would ‘spiral lower and lower’ and ‘fall to the sun’.
Folkerts, as I explained, Moon would be vectored to lower orbits if it were “released” at the right time. If vectored away from Sun, it would end up in an unstable orbit. It would NOT have enough velocity to escape.
Now, take my words out of context as much as you want. That’s what perverting reality is all about.
It seems you have to pervert my words as often as you must pervert your own, when you get caught.
That’s why this is so much fun.
EARLIER CLINT: “It would be pulled into Sun.”
Those are your words. You literally said the moon would be pulled into the sun if the earth were removed. I’m not sure what other possible meaning there could be.
CURRENT CLINT: “If vectored away from Sun, it would end up in an unstable orbit.”
A bit better, but still wrong. It would end up in practically the same orbit as it has now. The exact answer would depend on where the earth and moon were in their orbits when ‘the earth disappeared’. The new orbit would stable ellipse. A little more or a little less than 1 AU. A little more or a little less elliptical than it is now. But only a few percent different in any orbital parameter.
The moon would not be ‘pulled into the sun’.
The moon would not be ‘moving to lower and lower orbits’.
The moon would not ‘end up in an unstable orbit’.
I stand by my words, Folkerts.
It’s your responsibility to learn. And that won’t happen if you keep taking things out of context, rearranging, and purposely trying to confuse, like some braindead cult idiot.
You’re still trolling, Pup.
Where you go I go. What you see I see. I know I’d never be me, without the security.
Clint R: I suggest you replicate what you claim in some application or another. Say Kerbal Space program.
KENT: “If the earth were to disappear the moon would continue to orbit around the sun. “
CLINT “If Earth were to disappear, Moon would not have enough linear velocity to establish an orbit around Sun, or to escape Sun. It would be pulled into Sun.
Moon is NOT rotating, so it would continue NOT rotating, as it got pulled into Sun.
Moon orbits Earth, that keeps it “alive”. Without Earth, it would fall to Sun. “
Those are your words. In context (which anyone can check starting here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-1000050). No rearranging. Any confusion is straight from you.
You could just admit that you were wrong here. We are all wrong occasionally. You could say that you learned something about orbits and that you have changed your position based on a new, better understanding.
Folkerts, I stand by my words. I can’t explain physics and orbital motion to someone that can’t add vectors.
If you sincerely want to learn, I will spend some time. But, you can only take ONE issue at a time. If you try to confuse things, or misrepresent my words, or any of your other cult tactics, I’m gone. Let’s see how you do.
Now, in 25 words or less, what is your first concern about my words?
“If Earth were to disappear, Moon would not have enough linear velocity to establish an orbit around Sun, or to escape Sun. It would be pulled into Sun.”
Explain how you arrive at this conclusion. Maybe show some calculations of velocities that would correspond to
a) establishing an orbit
b) escaping from the sun
c) getting pulled into the sun.
Folkerts, you weren’t able to keep it to 25 words, but you did pretty well.
Your problem is you are taking my words out of the context of the discussion. I was answering Ken, who is deluded with his “sinusoidal orbit”. He made the false claims:
“If the earth were to disappear the moon would continue to orbit around the sun. It would continue to rotate around its axis too.”
So, I was correcting Ken.
As you have followed me regularly, you know I try to always write to the point, without aimless rambling. I was NOT trying to describe Moon’s exact possibilities, after Earth disappeared. I was trying to correct Ken. “Brevity”, as they say….
Then you entered with your usual nonsense claiming things that weren’t true:
“And yet while earth circles around the sun with this a, v, and r, he thinks the moon would ‘fall to the sun’ with the same a, v, and r.”
I don’t think that at all, Folkerts. In my next comment, I went on to explain more fully what would happen. That’s what led to you not being able to understand the vectors.
Moon’s actual fate would depend on where it was in orbit, when Earth disappeared. Any slowing of its linear speed, or any vectoring toward Sun, would seal its fate.
Again, if you want this to continue, none of your usual tricks will be allowed.
–He made the false claims:
“If the earth were to disappear the moon would continue to orbit around the sun. It would continue to rotate around its axis too.”
So, I was correcting Ken.–
It would continue to rotate, once a year, around the Moon/Sun barycenter.
I would say, that, is correcting or clarifying what Ken said.
Also the Moon would probably continue to it’s axis angle at 1.5 to Sun-
but it could become more unstable- it could be similar to Mars in terms of how unstable Mars has apparently been, over the millions of years.
gbaikie, here’s an easy experiment to help you understand:
Get a ball-on-a-string. Get on a merry-go-round. Swing the ball around your head, as the merry-go-round revolves. Let go of the string.
With practice, you could make the ball go any direction you wanted.
Now imagine the center of the MGR has a strong gravity field. That gravity field would affect the released ball. Adjust all masses, distances, and velocities to fit Moon/Sun, and presto, you see Moon mostly going into Sun.
Physics works.
y“I was answering Ken, who is deluded with his “sinusoidal orbit”.
This is not the point I was addressing. But while we are here, you were answering incorrectly. Ken was NOT describing a sinusoidal motion. He was (accurately) describing a circular motion superimposed on an elliptical orbit. Like a bicycle tire spinning as it moves along your ‘line”. You are (incorrectly) describing motion like a spring oscillating back and for across your ‘line’. While there are superficial similarities, they are not the same. I am sure ftop could make a lovely simulation to show you the difference.
In particular, you claimed “Next, move a pointer along the sine wave so that it always points to the straight line.” The proper description would be the “pointer” is from one spot on the tire inward along a spoke. There is no “instantaneous 180 degree flip”, but rather a smooth transition of the “pointer” as it maintains a constant magnitude and simply changes orientation.
So first you misunderstood Ken’s correct description. Then you compounded that by failing to predict how the moon would move if the earth disappeared.
–Clint R says:
November 17, 2021 at 9:01 PM
gbaikie, here’s an easy experiment to help you understand:
Get a ball-on-a-string. Get on a merry-go-round. Swing the ball around your head, as the merry-go-round revolves. Let go of the string.–
When do I let go of string to hit the axis of the merry-go-round?
Doesn’t the timing of release of the string, matter depending how fast the merry-go-round is spinning.
So, consider careful when do let go of the string?
Then, go ahead and try it.
But it’s analogy, as has been said. But if merry-go-round is spinning quite fast, it is somewhat useful.
Space is big, and Earth is going about 30 km/sec [66,960 mph]
If take into account scale of it, and speed of it.
The analogy fairly close to reality.
Or serves as good as many other kinds of analogies.
Remember the rules, Folkerts — only one issue at a time.
So do you understand where you messed up on the first issue? If so, we can move on to your next concern.
Again, try to state your issue in 25 words or less.
gbaikie, yes it would take practice. It’s like shooting a moving target. But with gravity helping, it’s much easier.
“Or serves as good as many other kinds of analogies.”
A big problem with such an analogy, it does not indicate “how”
a hohmann transfer works.
They don’t work with merry-go-rounds
So, wouldn’t indicate the least amount energy needed to hit the sun-
or how to get closer to the sun {or further away from sun}
Or it’s missing the element of continual gravitational force of the sun with the “ball”
Instead you are limited in “seeing” a type of non hohmann pathway.
“Remember the rules, Folkerts — only one issue at a time.”
You are the one who when off on the tangent! If you don’t want to discuss what Ken said, then don’t bring it up and stick to the point.
I asked you to address what YOU think would happen with the moon’s orbit if the earth ‘disappeared’. You are welcome to do that. Would it …
* fall to the sun?
* spiral inward?
* fly away in some unstable orbit?
* other?
Giving your latest post, it is pretty clear you will get the answer wrong
“Adjust all masses, distances, and velocities to fit Moon/Sun, and presto, you see Moon mostly going into Sun.”
Since you seem to think this is a simple, straightforward problem with an obvious answer, I challenge you to try this. The correct answer is “you see the moon mostly going the way it was already going, with only a minor change in orbit”. With just a little insight, it should be obvious that if the gravity is strong enough to ‘pull the moon in’, it would be strong enough to pull the earth in too. And we would not be here!
I agree, Hohmann transfer does not work with a MGR. Walter would be chuckling in his grave.
☺
Hohmann transfer deals with spacecraft changing orbits. In our nonsense here, we have no spacecraft. Earth disappears, and all that is considered is Sun/Moon gravitational acceleration, and Moon’s vectors.
Folkerts, remember the rules, — only one issue at a time. You don’t want to look like an unorganized, out-of-control idiot, do you?
So do you understand where you messed up on the first issue? If so, we can move on to your next concern.
Again, try to state your issue in 25 words or less.
ON the ‘first issue’ I think you are wrong.
The moon would not be ‘pulled into the sun’.
The moon would not be ‘moving to lower and lower orbits’.
The moon would not ‘end up in an unstable orbit’.
“That is being too generous. The moon’s orbital speed around the earth is ~ 3% of the earth’s orbital speed around the sun”
Yes, probably.
What is minimum delta-v from lunar surface to Venus orbital distance?
Assuming a lunar gravity loss of .1 km/sec {or less}.
{The gravity loss of leaving lunar gravity well- which with the Moon itself, would be of course, be zero.
Apollo Lunar ascent had 100 m/s or .1 km/sec gravity loss when getting to low lunar orbit.}
I just discovered another trick the cult idiots are using. They are going back to older parts of the comments (upthread), and entering comments long after the discussion has moved on. They will wait until no one is commenting in that area, then make a comment. The worst offenders appear to be Nate and bobdroege. Apparently they are afraid to comment where the discussion is taking place, or they believe they can alter reality by leaving a comment no one will notice.
Here’s one example where Nate left a comment 4-5 days late!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-1001028
No one responded to Nate, possibly that was his goal. His comment attempted to be a “gotcha”, but Nate wasn’t brave enough to make it when it would be seen. It’s kinda like “back-stabbing”.
Alternatively, they have a life, and don’t come here every day to jerk off. YMMV.
Dang barry, your cult’s meltdown is only just beginning and already you’re at rock bottom.
That’s why this is so much fun. And it’s going to be more and more fun. You cult idiots are fully exposed and have no place to run.
You’re at 245 comments, Pup. You still lost the Moon argument. Perhaps it’s time for some introspection.
One reason might be you’re so dumb that you conflate contrarian commenters and orthodox ones.
In any event, do continue.
“You cult idiots are fully exposed and have no place to run.”
Too many comics as a child? What else would explain this hyperbolic fantasising?
Clint R,
What discussion, has it moved on?
Really, you and your compadres have been spouting the same bull for years, the discussion hasn’t moved on.
I’ll comment when and where I want to.
Thanks for your concern, troll.
You got caught, bob.
That’s funny enough, but trying to spin yourself out of it is the jackpot.
Clint R,
Caught doing what Clint R?
As to your perverting reality, how do you plead?
2. Moon’s Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.moon
Surface temp..Tmin..Tmean..Tmax
Kelvin………….100.K…220.K…390.K
So = 1.361 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
Moon’s albedo: amoon = 0,11
Moon’s sidereal rotation period is 27,32 days. But Moon is Earth’s satellite, so the lunar day is 29,5 days
Moon does N = 1/29,5 rotations/per day
Moon is a rocky planet, Moon’s surface irradiation accepting factor Φmoon = 0,47
(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S* Φ*π*r²*(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
cp.moon = 0,19 cal/gr oC, moon’s surface specific heat (moon’s surface is considered as a dry soil)
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – it is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation INTERACTING-Emitting Universal Law constant
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Moon’s Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.moon:
Tmean.moon = [ Φ (1 – a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Tmean.moon = { 0,47 (1 – 0,11) 1.361 W/m² [150* (1/29,5)*0,19]¹∕ ⁴ /4*5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴ }¹∕ ⁴ =
Tmean.moon = ( 2.488.581.418,96 )¹∕ ⁴ = 223,35 K
Tmean.moon = 223,35 Κ
The newly calculated Moon’s Mean Surface Temperature differs only by 1,54% from that measured by satellites!
Tsat.mean.moon = 220 K, measured by satellites.
Conclusions:
The planet mean surface temperature equation
Tmean = [ Φ (1-a) S (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet…..Tmean…..Tsat.mean
Mercury…325,83 K….340 K
Earth…..287,74 K….288 K
Moon……223,35 Κ….220 Κ
Mars……213,21 K….210 K
The 288 K – 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There are only traces of greenhouse gasses.
The Earth’s atmosphere is very thin. There is not any measurable Greenhouse Gasses Warming effect on the Earth’s surface.
There is NO +33°C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
Both the calculated by equation and the satellite measured Earth’s mean surface temperatures are almost identical:
Tmean.earth = 287,74K = 288 K
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, here’s a hint: the 255K planetary Te isn’t satellite measured at the L&O surface.
Measured Tse – Te = 288K – 255K = 33K exists in the real world.
The “real 255K surface” is NOT real. It is an imaginary sphere. It is one of the perversions of science that makes up the AGW nonsense. It doesn’t exist.
In your imagination Clint R; in real life Te 255K has been measured on the real earthen system.
Oh, so NOW it’s a “system”?
What happened to the “surface”?
No wonder you can’t find it, Braindead4. It keeps changing on you….
Nothing, the Te 255K surface is of the real existing earthen system Clint R. Not imaginary except in your writings.
Moritz Busing tried several times to be published on his findings reported here. The shortest time between sending in his manuscript and having it rejected was 5 minutes.
Does this make you proud of peer review?
Only good can come from following up and understanding his contribution, so why sneer?
Geoff S
If that may console you, Geoff, it’s the same statistical trick as Pat’s:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/09/08/propagation-of-nonsense/
Perhaps he’d need to be as aggressive as him?
Just a thought.
geoff…”Moritz Busing tried several times to be published on his findings reported here”.
***
Was there supposed to be a link at ‘here’? What’s the story on this guy?
Canada’s colder low could bring lots of snow to the Great Lakes.
https://i.ibb.co/3SXDNQ0/mimictpw-namer-latest.gif
The polar vortex will soon split into two centers consistent with the geomagnetic field. This is characteristic of periods of low solar activity.
https://i.ibb.co/WnNJfw3/gfs-z100-nh-f72.png
ren…”The polar vortex will soon split into two centers…”
***
Any news of it descending to Vancouver, Canada?
The peer review system is not perfect, but it is the best that we have.
By scientific community rules, peer-reviewed literature represents the body of scientific knowledge, and all scientists are expected to be familiar with it.
The decision to publish a paper is made by the Editor. The reviewer’s role is only to advise the Editor. The reviewer does not/should not (1)comment on stuff where he doesn’t have expertise; (2) get mad if the Editor doesn’t follow his advice.
Honest authors should avoid predatory journals and vanity journals which do not get their revenue from advertising or reader subscriptions but rather from “Article Processing Charges” paid by the authors.
The trove of human knowledge will be polluted if papers are published that are (1) wrong, or (2) don’t add significant knowledge.
When scientists don’t follow the “rules” fiascos like
Cold fusion; and New Madrid happen.
Apparently some 80% of peer reviewed papers are wrong. Peter Ridd has a great video on the ‘Replication Crisis’. Testing, Checking, and Replicating the Science is therefore necessary for Quality Assurance. No level of government is doing the necessary Quality Assurance before making policy on Climate Change Claptrap.
Assuming your claim of 80% is true and verifiable, are you saying that you would rather have 100% of papers being wrong? In my area of expertise I can spot a fake by just reading an abstract and conclusions; I can’t say the same for areas where I’ve not been academically or on-the-job trained so I rely on other experts. This is what Adam Smith meant by the benefits of Division of Labor. Contrary to your beliefs, not any one person can be an expert at everything.
The rest of your comment reeks of politics and conspiracy theories, not in my wheel well.
P.s.: oh-oh!
Censorship is another huge problem in the sciences relating to climate.
You call it censorship, the law calls breaking an enforceable contract. That one’s easy.
University is about academic freedom.
The law is an ass.
The point isn’t about Ridd’s legal problems.
The point is that of a crisis in the reliability of peer review.
I don’t trust anybody who gets fired for cause. The law is mankind’s greatest invention.
Also, I was not able to find any references supporting your 80% figure.
Here is a fun, informative video about science research being frequently wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q
Ken
” Apparently some 80% of peer reviewed papers are wrong. ”
Are you able to provide us with a source other than an absolutely non-binding video (of which you don’t even post a link to) ?
Kennui suggested that 80% of peer reviewed papers are wrong. That’d be generous. Since empirical science is meant to be self-correcting, we should hope that it’s 99,999% crap.
Hence why we should embrace crappiness:
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2018/05/03/the-pursuit-of-crappiness/
Contrarians have a model of science that has been refuted by what they love most – capitalism.
The consensus is 100% wrong about the ozone hole.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/polar/gif_files/ozone_hole_plot.png
The consensus isn’t wrong about how Freedom Fighters suck at ingressivism:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02205-8
W wouldn’t be eating without Capitalism.
Pozzo wouldn’t be saying stuff without a mouth.
What, in your opinion, is the “consensus” about the ozone hole? Is it different from data?
NASA Ozone Watch: https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/monthly/SH.html
It seems a good bet that next month temp will be down.
How much down is another matter.
I having good weather, it’s been bit warmer than it was, but seems a lot people having and going to have cold weather in the short term
binny…” warm poleward advection streams in the troposphere
coming from the Tropics even during the winter, hence the Arctic freezes less and less”.
***
This is why I call you an idiot. Every winter, the Arctic Ocean freezes over to a depth of 10 feet of ice. That’s frozen salt water to a depth of 10 feet. Is that what you call freezing less and less?
Oh, I forgot, you’re one of those idiots who gets off on scaring people over the amount of ice in the Arctic during one month of SUMMER.
The annual maximum sea ice extent has been going down.
https://kuroshio.eorc.jaxa.jp/JASMES/climate/data/graph/JASMES_CLIMATE_SIE_197811_000000_5DAVG_PS_9999_LINE_NHM_201.png
It’s not just the summer ice extent
Its been going up since 2012.
Temperature can’t go up dramatically till all the ice melts. We are not going to see all the ice melt.
Last I looked, 2015 annual sea ice extent for the Arctic was lower than 2012. I’m having trouble accessing the data. Does anyone have the goods on annual Arctic sea ice extent in recent years? It would be a useful metric, because it’s slightly less prone to the vagaries of weather conditions (compared to monthly comparisons).
https://nsid*c.org/arcticseaicenews/2021/03/
(Remove * before use)
Thanks, there was a link to an Exel spreadsheet with the annual data in the ‘Charctic’ section.
NH annual sea ice extent in million square kilometres:
2012 – 10.406
2013 – 10.897
2014 – 10.79
2015 – 10.566
2016 – 10.163
2017 – 10.393
2018 – 10.355
2019 – 10.201
2020 – 10.15
So not 2015.
But every year after 2015 had a lower annual sea ice extent than 2012, with 2020 being the lowest on record.
All that ice is reducing the value of all that cheap arctic ocean front real estate. We’d be better off if it were gone.
Why contradict yourself?
“Its been going up since 2012.”
Now you seem to agree it’s going down – and it’s a good thing.
I guess if I wanted to discover some consistency it would be in your attitude, not in your science.
Graph of annual average extent of NH sea ice, including least squares linear trendline.
https://i.imgur.com/YDRKG4J.png
bob d…”The annual maximum sea ice extent has been going down”.
***
Nonsense. There is nothing to decrease the ice extent in an Arctic winter with little or no Sun for months at a time.
How about the water being warmer over time? Or the area of water above freezing contracting around the Arctic?
Of course, there is always the enhanced greenhouse effect causing warmer air temperatures over time in the Winter.
However, if you wish to posit that sea ice can only ever be affected by the sun and nothing else, then you are free to make that assumption.
barry, don’t forget that sea ice varies over decades. We only have about 50 years of accurate data, and the first part of those data was in a cold period. It’s all too easy for Warmists to cherry-pick.
What we know for certain is that there is no “enhanced greenhouse effect causing warmer air temperatures over time in the Winter.”
How much is that enhanced greenhouse effect causing warmer air temperatures over time in winter? Earth NullSchool says North Pole is -27C today. A warming of 2C or 3C isn’t going to make a difference.
Everything I’ve read about warming arctic temperatures that makes any sense is all about ocean currents bringing relatively warm water to the Arctic Sea. When the AMOC and PDO cycles go negative then Arctic should go colder again.
You can see daily temperatures in the Arctic North of 80N here:
https://tinyurl.com/2flsb7e
Daily temps for each year with a click.
Nonsense Gordon,
I posted data showing the decrease from 1980 to now.
1980 just over 16 million square kilometers to 2021 of just over 14 million square kilometers.
Is there a way to make the ice melt faster? Right now its too dangerous for oil tankers and most other marine traffic to transit the Northwest Passage. It’d be a huge economic boom if the ice melted.
You can, but the cost is losing a lot of prime real estate on the global coasts, and flooding the Asian bread basket. But maybe the oil companies could recompense this somehow, with all the fabulous profits they will make from an opened Arctic?
On this blog there seems to be a poster who cannot seem to grasp the concept of a radiating surface. This person believes only a solid surface is real, a radiating surface is imaginary.
I want to help this poster with his mental block.
I appeal to any other posters to help this one out.
Here is an image of an object that is not solid at all, it is composed of small water droplets.
https://www.disneyanimation.com/img/uploads/resources/clouds/cloud-readme.jpg
Can posters see a distinct edge? Does it have a radiating surface?
It can appear solid from an outside perspective. Is this radiating surface imaginary? It can be photographed and seen.
Let others decide. I doubt any will be able to convince this poster but I was just curious to find out what others think about surfaces and what they think is real or imaginary.
Norman, that’s called a “cloud”. Are you saying a cloud is your “real 255K surface”?
Or are you just grasping at straws because you don’t have a “real 255K surface”?
Clint R
A cloud does not have a solid surface but you can clearly see and photo one. The light you see can be reflected from droplets within the cloud and not just “surface” ones. Do you admit you can see a cloud in the sky or take a picture of it? What are you seeing? There is not solid surface for a cloud, you can walk through them when they are on the surface.
Here is an IR image of clouds in the sky.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/FLIR_clouds_backyard.jpg
The clouds still have a radiating surface in IR as well as visible.
Can you see the cloud image? Is this surface imaginary? Can Roy get a temperature reading of this surface? Sure looks like he can.
I do not think you are able to understand the concept of a radiating surface or what it means and I do not think you can accept any explanation of it so we will just have to accept that about you.
The real radiating surface of Earth at 255 K has been given to you in images. You do not accept evidence. What is your point?
Norman, the reason you ramble so much is because you have NOTHING.
A cloud has an altitude. So if you understand that, what is the altitude of your “real 255K surface”?
Like earth’s L&O surface, it varies Clint R, instead of asking others do the research yourself to find how much it varies. Or just keep admitting you aren’t capablw to do so despite all the clues given to Clint.
(See Norman, Braindead4 has NOTHING, but he doesn’t ramble endlessly.)
I have the altitudes Clint R. I see you admit Clint doesn’t & they are basic to climate research which Clint avoids learning. Fun to watch all Clint’s dodging.
Surface calculation of 255K is based on how much energy is calculated to reach earth from the sun.
Compared with distance Sun to Earth, altitude of clouds is insignificant, effectively zero to quite a few decimal places.
The 255K is the calculated temperature for an imaginary sphere, Ken. It has NOTHING to do with reality. That’s why the cult idiots can’t find the “real 255K surface”. And “clouds” have nothing to do with it. That’s just Normans attempt to distract and confuse.
Here’s the calculation:
Solar flux after adjusting for albedo = 960 W/m^2
Imaginary sphere absorbs ALL of the 960 W/m^2, and at equilbrium must then emit 240 W/m^2 over its entire surface. Using S/B equation:
240 = σT^4
T^4 = 240/σ = 240*(10^8)/5.67
T = 255K
The cult then compares 255K to Earth’s average surface temperature of 288K, and claims the difference, 33K, is due to the “greenhouse effect”. In reality, the difference is meaningless because there is no such thing as an imaginary sphere, and Earth does NOT have a 255K surface. It’s all nonsense.
> In reality, the difference is meaningless
I hope you’re not an accountant, Pup, for you might face jail time if you counsel clients to abstract away their income.
Where’s Bill, BTW?
Clint R is not an accurate accountant for sure.
Here’s the correct calculation including accounting for ALL the real sphere m^2 that Clint R wrongly just simply hides from the innocent reader:
Solar flux after adjusting for albedo over entire real earthen surface m^2 = 240 W/m^2
Real sphere absorbs ALL of the solar illumination not reflected or transmitted over its entire surface since Earth is rotating for 240 W/m^2, and at multiannual ~steady state equilibrium must then emit 240 W/m^2 over its entire real surface.
Earthen Tse – Te = 288K – 255K = 33K real GHE which Clint R admits to not understand.
Braindead4 implies my calculation is wrong and misleading. Then he copies my results, claiming it is correct!
Such antics probably fool idiots like Norman.
Ball4
“Solar flux after adjusting for albedo over entire real earthen surface m^2 = 240 W/m^2”
What I have discovered is:
The not reflected portion of the incident solar flux cannot get entirely accumulated by the sunlit side of the planetary surface.
Also I have discovered there is the Φ -factor.
Φ – is the Planet surface solar irradiation accepting factor.
For smooth surface planets, Earth including, Φ=0,47
The TOTAL not reflected portion of the incident on planet solar flux is:
Jnot.reflected = πr²Φ*S*(1-a) (W)
Also a planet emits in total from the entire planet surface area:
Jemit = 4πr²σΤmean⁴ /(β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ (W)
Planet Energy Budget:
Jnot.reflected = 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)
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Φ – is the Planet surface solar irradiation accepting factor.
For smooth surface planets, Earth including, Φ=0,47
The planet Earth s TOTAL not reflected portion of the incident on planet solar flux is:
TOTAL Jearth.not.reflected = πr²Φ(1-a)S (W)
TOTAL Jearth.not.reflected = πr²0,47(1-0,306)1.361W/m² (W)
TOTAL Jearth.not.reflected = πr²444 (W)
where r is Earth s radius.
“Real sphere absorbs ALL of the solar illumination not reflected or transmitted over its entire surface since Earth is rotating for 240 W/m^2, and at multiannual ~steady state equilibrium must then emit 240 W/m^2 over its entire real surface.”
“…absorbs ALL of the solar illumination not reflected or transmitted over its entire surface…”
It is not true, because the not reflected portion of solar flux is
1). Partly on the very instant IR emitted.
2). And only the rest of it is accumulated in the inner layers of the solar irradiated spot.
The accumulated in the inner layers energy is also emitted as IR, but later, mostly at the nighttime hours.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Norman at 10:57 PM
“This person believes only a solid surface is real, a radiating surface is imaginary.”
You have the patience of Job (if you are into the New Testament, otherwise, change that to “the endurance of Job.”), but I digress.
There is the possibility that you are being trolled since it is well known that:
I’m glad you’re trying to learn something, TM. But the issue is your cult is unable to find their “real 255K surface”. Do you know where it might be?
It’s obvious Clint R doesn’t know where it is, has to ask, & it’s so basic to climate research.
“… they emit and absorb within narrow wavelength bands.”
No. Tyson, this clip of yours is not accurate, all gases are matter and as such absorb and emit radiation at all frequencies and all temperatures. All the time.
NO, Gasses only emit thermal IR radiation at discrete wavelengths (or frequencies), unlike solid or liquid materials. That explains the spectroscopic data which shows those wavelengths as “lines” in the spectrum of emissions. That difference is central to understanding the CO2 Greenhouse Effect.
E. Swanson at 11:53 AM
Yes exactly. It’s not a surprise when Clint R is confused by this, but he seems to have found company on the Group W Bench.
E. Swanson, gas emission intensity peaks at certain frequencies (lines) but is not identically zero at any frequency or any temperature. Spectroscopy is a fascinating subject of science details*. Much of the original research testing was conducted in the 1930’s, 1940’s even 1950’s and is sometimes largely forgotten now.
If you look at any gas spectrum (absorp_tion or emission) there may be dark areas where the photographic recording method used just wasn’t sensitive enough or too short exposure time to pick up the photons the gas constituents absorbed or emitted at that frequency. Witness: the ideal Planck function is never identically zero at any frequency or temperature though the Planck intensity result may be below today’s instrumental sensitivity.
All spectrums are continuous even gas spectrums of planetary atm. constituents at earthen temperatures and pressures.
*The standard treatise on atomic spectra, by Condon and
Shortley, fills 432 pages of text. Herzberg’s treatises fill 581 pages for diatomic molecules, 538 pages for polyatomic molecules, and 670 pages for the electronic spectra of polyatomic
molecules. Townes and Schawlow devote 648 pages to microwave spectroscopy. Lifting all that is nothing compared to mentally absorbing it.
I have Herzberg on my desk and would like to know where it says that: “this clip of yours is not accurate, all gases are matter and as such absorb and emit radiation at all frequencies and all temperatures. All the time.”
Granted, my source is the “VDI Heat Atlas 2010” which is an engineering data book for heat-exchanger and process engineering equipment design, and not a spectroscopy textbook, but still very reliable.
As I understand your comment you are saying that Nitrogen and Hydrogen in the atmosphere are absorbers in the infrared range, which doesn’t strike me as something out of Herzberg.
That heat-exchanger stuff is typically for optical depths on the order of a furnace flue.
Yes, N2 and O2 weakly absorb in IR in our atm. For optical depths on order of earthen atm., look up: “The natural greenhouse effect of atmospheric oxygen (O2) and nitrogen (N2)” by Hopfner in GRL 2012 for: “as discovered by Crawford et al. [1949], collision induced absorp_tion leads to weak absorp_tion features of N2 and O2 in the infrared [e.g., Hartmann et al., 2008].”
Ball4 at 5:21 PM
“Yes, N2 and O2 weakly absorb in IR in our atm.”
At which frequencies? The reason I ask is because N2 is a commonly used diluent for measuring IR spectra of CO2 for reasons stated above.
P.s.: I did mean to say Oxygen, not Hydrogen, obviously.
Ball4, I notice that your reference(?), “The Theory of Atomic Spectra” by Condon and Shortley appears to have been published back in 1935, with a reprint date of 1951, as offered on eBay just now. there are later works on the subject, including “Atmospheric Radiation by Goody, which I think is still in print. I have a copy of that one and also “Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer” by Siegel and Howell.
I don’t claim to fully grasp the science, but I think the climate change community is well aware of how things work in the atmosphere, such as the pressure broadening of the spectral lines. Then too, there is the “atmospheric window” which is nearly free of absorp_tion for surface emissions.
Tyson, good questions, from the paper:
“The collision-induced fundamental vibration-rotation band at 6.4 micron is the major absorp_tion signature of O2 in the thermal infrared. Timofeyev and Tonkov [1978] reported that at distinct wavelengths near the band center, O2 absorp_tion may affect the atmospheric zenith transmission by up to 9% for dry atmospheric conditions.”
“N2 has two major bands influencing the infrared radiation: the collision-induced rotovibrational fundamental band at 2400 cm-1 and the collision-induced rototranslational band at 100 cm-1. In the atmosphere, the mid-infrared absorp_tion of N2 was first observed by Susskind and Searl [1977] by use of ground-based FTIR measurements.”
—-
E. Swanson, yes as I noted, atomic spectra research was of popular interest & funded in 1930+s generating texts thereafter.
The climate wars got me interested enough to dig into the details deeper than is practically necessary. The energies of the oscillators are quantized in principle, but the spacing of energy levels is so small macroscopically that in practice the levels are continuous.
Ball4 at 11:21 PM
Ok, but you still didn’t support your statement of 10:43 AM that “this clip of yours is not accurate”, especially since by saying “Dry air, elementary gases – e.g., O2, N2, H2, – and the noble gases are practically diathermanous, i.e., transparent to thermal radiation” I preempted all your objections.
I am obviously not an expert in these matters, it’s more of a hobby, but I try to be directionally accurate in my comments if not always precisely so.
Good discussion. Regards.
Tyson, my statement at 10:43 focused on emitting and absorbing just in narrow bands which is inaccurate since all matter (solid, liquid, gas, plasma) absorbs and emits with nonzero intensity at every frequency not just in a narrow band.
I explained the ideal Planck function intensity result shows why that is inaccurate. The use of “practically” term in your clip makes a point on whether today’s instruments have the sensitivity to detect gas emission on very short optical depths (furnace flue) & especially vs. our atm. Tomorrow’s instruments – who knows?
Ball4 at 9:52 AM
Are you saying that molecular absorp tion/emission is not quantized? Further, are you saying that these transitions don’t follow certain selection rules per quantum mechanics? If you are, then I know you are wrong.
This has nothing to do with the Planck function. We are talking about even more fundamentals processes than that here.
I would like some direction as to where in Herzberg ( Ball4 at 3:07 PM you are getting your information. As I said, I have Herzberg Vols 1, 2, 3, and 4.
See my 11:21pm: “The energies of the oscillators are quantized in principle, but the spacing of energy levels is so small macroscopically that in practice the levels are continuous.”
Wherever Herzberg writes out the ideal Planck function, go and plug in any frequency get a nonzero intensity result. If “they emit and absorb within narrow wavelength bands.” were accurate there would be a frequency outside the narrow wavelength bands where the Planck intensity result is identically zero but there isn’t any such frequency.
Ball4 at 10:49 AM
Now I’m sure you’re trolling me, because Herzberg does not talk about the Planck function, anywhere. He does use the Planck constant to calculate energy levels of the various transitions.
I’ve said before that I’m not an expert in this, but I know enough to spot fundamental errors.
Clint R at 9:35 AM
“Do you know where it might be?”
Here’s a hint, maybe you hid in the same place as your Arrhenius CO2 equation. Look there and report back.
Well TM, you finally found the Arrhenius nonsense! I’m impressed.
Now where’s the “real 255K surface”?
Maybe you can find it before the rest of the idiots. They’re really having trouble.
Keep asking Clint R, or hey just go look up the location by reading reliable research on your own time.
You still got nothing, huh Braindead4?
rlh…According to you, you are orbiting the Sun as well, based on your own momentum. At least the Moon has enough momentum to stay in orbit around the Earth but only a fraction of the momentum required to maintain an Earth orbit around the Sun.
The basic, simplified, equation representing the Moon orbiting the Earth, or the Earth orbiting the Sun, is f = mv^2/r. Try working that out with the Moon’s linear orbital velocity and mass and see if it fits f, the force of attraction of the Sun at the distance r from the Moon.
Have you decided if you can push many tones of mass around with only human muscles yet?
Are we allowed to use wheels, levers, chain falls, come-a-longs, and pulleys?
You don’t need any multipliers. You can push boats, barges, etc. (which can weigh a few tones) around quite easily at low velocities with just human muscles alone. Done it myself countless times.
If the Erath were to ‘disappear’, then the Moon would quite happily stay in orbit around the Sun. That is a fact.
Moon remaining the same is the lease likely outcome. Highest probability is Moon would “fall” into Sun.
I was trying to explain this to Folkerts upthread, but he couldn’t understand vector addition.
The Earth/Moon barycentre orbits the Sun at 30km/second.
The Moon orbits the barycentre at 1km/second.
If the Earth disappeared at the full moon the Moon would have an orbital velocity of 31km/second. Its current distance would become the perigee of a larger elliptical orbit.
If Earth disappeared at New moon, the moon would have an orbital velocity of 29km and its current position would be the apogee of a smaller ellipse.
Full moon would provide the highest probability Moon could remain close to Earth’s original orbit.
At new moon, it would move closer and closer to Sun in a spiraling orbit.
pups continues to display it’s ignorance of physics. There’s no such thing as a “spiraling” orbit, all orbits are ellipses.
“Theres no such thing as a spiraling orbit, all orbits are ellipses”
Agreed.
Swanson and RLH have a “consensus” that orbits don’t spiral.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jHsq36_NTU
We’ve been discussing orbits relative to the Sun.
The spirals described in your video relate to the Sun’s movement relative to other stars.
But there’s still no “spiralling in”.
Maybe that’s why manmade satellites always stay in orbit and never “spiral in”….
pups, I think you are confused. Most manmade satellites orbit relatively close to the Earth and are subject to aerodynamic drag to some degree, thus they will eventually enter the atmosphere. Satellites at higher orbits, such as the geostationary ones, will remain there for very long times, perhaps as “presents” for future archeologists from distant stars.
You’re learning, Swanson.
As orbiting objects loses velocity they move lower and lower.
Now, if you could learn to stop worshiping Willard, and mimicking his nonsense, you might be on the road to recover from a braindead cult idiot.
Or not….
pups, the comments were about the Moon’s orbit if the Earth suddenly vanished. In that case, the Moon would assume a new orbit not much different that Earth’s, without spiraling into the Sun. There would be no mechanism which would cause the Moon to lose velocity.
Wrong Swanson.
What happens to Moon after Earth disappears depends on where Moon was in it orbit. Vectors matter.
And please continue to worship Willard. Then I don’t have to explain that you are a braindead cult idiot.
Clint R: You have to understand the difference between a single application of a vector (an orbit change) and a continuous one (a braking or acceleration maneuver).
There is not a continuous vector being applied if the Earth were to suddenly ‘disappear’.
Nice video Clint R,
But those aren’t spirals.
“Highest probability is Moon would ‘fall’ into Sun”
Even if the vector of the Moon’s motion was towards the Sun at the time the Earth ‘disappeared’ (its most Sunwards position) it would not ‘fall’ into the Sun. You need to do some orbital mechanics theory.
> the lease likely outcome
That’s because the Moon lives rent free in your head, Pup.
If the Moon were falling toward the Sun, it would increase it’s velocity and most likely miss the Sun, unless there was some way to slow the Moon’s velocity, otherwise it would slingshot around the Sun.
It’s like being on a merry-go-round and trying to move towards the center, it’s really hard.
If the center of the MGR had Sun’s gravity, it might help a little….
Still have to shed velocity normal to the vector pointing at the Sun.
If the y axis it towards the Sun, you still have the velocity in the x and z axes to worry about.
It all depends on the directions of the vectors at “release”. But, the highest probability is Moon would not remain in the old Earth orbit.
The easiest analogy is releasing the ball-on-a-string while riding on a MGR. Where the ball ends up depends on where in its orbit it is released.
Regardless of the direction of ‘release’, it would still end up in an elliptical orbit, not an inward spiral one.
Mars orbital velocity is 24km\sec.
Venus orbital velocity is 35km\sec.
If the Earth disappears the Moon retains an orbital velocity between 29 and 31 km/sec. That sets boundary conditions. I doubt that the Moon’s new orbit would take it closer to the Sun than Venus or further out than Mars.
By coincidence, I’ve just started reading the Stephen Baxter novel Galaxias.
It starts with the disappearance of the Sun and the consequences thereof.
The scientists here would enjoy it. Clint, Gordon and DREMT would hate it.
Ent, if a body is vectored lower in orbit, it needs MORE velocity to maintain that orbit. If it can’t maintain its orbit, it moves lower and lower.
And I don’t know about DREMT or Gordon, but I don’t waste time on sci-fi. Reality is too interesting.
For example, did you know that spiders do NOT have muscles in their legs?
“Ent, if a body is vectored lower in orbit, it needs MORE velocity to maintain that orbit. If it can’t maintain its orbit, it moves lower and lower.”
Half Right.
When an object moves lower in orbit, it does need more velocity to maintain the orbit. However, as it moves to that lower orbit, it loses PE and gains KE. It gains speed. Soon it has more than it needs to maintain the orbit and it moves back out.
In other words, it follows an elliptical orbit. “Falling” in toward the sun at aphelion when it is far an slow. Then “rising” away from the sun at perihelion, when it is close and fast.
This has been know since the time of Newton. Objects will not just spiral lower and lower into the sun.
Folkerts, you’re only half right when you half agree with me.
By your “reasoning”, satellites would never return to Earth. And we don’t want to mention meteors and asteroids….
With Earth:
Mean orbital velocity (km/s) 29.78
Max. orbital velocity (km/s) 30.29
Min. orbital velocity (km/s) 29.29
At 30.29 km/sec Earth is at Perihelion, which is
on January 2, 2021 {or generally in few days of the
beginning of January]. And at Aphelion, July 5 2022.
[Though it also matters what time zone you are in, I would guess
that is that is Greenwich time.}
Or seems we going almost 30 km/sec right now.
Moon is going in front of sun, starting about 4 hours.
No, Earth blocking sun starting about 4 hours, so it’s full moon, but suppose to be strange because small part will remain sunlight- top part?? Anyways:
Moon orbit around earth
Mean orbital velocity (km/s) 1.022
Max. orbital velocity (km/s) 1.082
Min. orbital velocity (km/s) 0.970
When is Moon at perigee:
Next Apogee
Nov 20, 2021 at 6:12 pm
[[So close to it now]]
Next Perigee
Dec 4, 2021 at 2:03 am
https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/moon/lunar-perigee-apogee.html
So I think that something do why this one is weird. Anyhow:
So Moon going a bit slower than 1 km/sec right now.
And closer to Mars, than Earth is, and in half month it would going faster be closer to Venus orbit.
Say we on the Moon and had two spacecrafts with lots rocket fuel, A goes to Venus and B goes to Mars.
And we going to go directly from Moon to Mars or Venus.
And we not going get the positions of where those planet are, so we assume they would be in right spot, when ever pick. Or we just going to go to their orbital distance {planets don’t have to be there}
When to A and B leave Moon?
Clint, my ‘reasoning’ is cpnservation of energy.
By your ‘reasoning’ the earth spirals in toward the sun for 6 months … and would continue to spiral in. It would long ago have crashed into the sun.
Surely after reading the other comments you recognize that it is the atmosphere acting on small satellites that causes the loss of energy, adn the inward spiral.
For larger objects (asteroids, moons, planets) and less aerodynamic drage, the energy loss is minimal. Hence the earth remaining in pretty much the same orbit for 4.5 billion years. (Heck the moon is actually moving to a HIGHER orbit around the earth!)
Folkerts, your latest perversion of physics (#10) ia addressed here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-1013870
Clint R: It is you who have the science all wrong.
Yet spiders can do the Poll Dance Experiment, Pup.
What’s your excuse?
> All that ice is reducing the value of all that cheap arctic ocean front real estate. Wed be better off if it were gone.
I thought you realized what more water in the system could do, Kennui:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-1004361
The current flood situation in BC is an extreme weather event. A fifty year event. Its not evidence of climate change. Those famous rugged mountains of BC were not sculpted by gentle spring rain.
Water is like money, Kennui:
Mo money, mo problems.
There is no evidence that lower ice extent in arctic will result in more Pineapple Express rain systems similar to that experienced in BC this week.
You should know better than to make unfounded claims about climate that are not supported in the empirical data.
There is absolutely no evidence you know how to play Clinateball, Kennui.
Why are you doing this to yourself?
Start here:
https://schools.bchydro.com/activities/energy/the-water-cycle
It’s a reasonable projection.
As the world warms most weather phenomena are shifting towards higher latitudes.
BC is North of the average Pineapple express track. You might or might not expect the intensity of BC pineapple expresses to increase, but you should expect them to become more frequent.
Why should there be more frequent Atmospheric Rivers/ Pineapple Express events? They are entirely dependent on factors such as ENSO, PDO, and where the jet stream is during winter months.
There is not a year over year change in trends. Some years we don’t get any. Others a half dozen.
You have no data to support your claim; all you have is ‘gut’ feeling which is not enough to make economic decisions.
Willard, BC Hydro gets its information from BC Government. BC Government gets its policy from its political parties. The political parties build their platform on what members think will get the party elected. We got carbon tax after our Premier Gordon Campbell had an awestruck visit with Arnold Schwarzenegger when he was Governor of California.
There is no science involved in BC’s Climate Change Agenda.
Just imagine if one of those atmospheric Rivers collides with one of the famous polar vortex.
Imagine if the frequency of both were the result of earth and sun magnetic fields going weaker than usual.
Oops. End of Holocene interglacial.
The ravening nutters would still try to blame it on Carbon Dioxide.
Kennui,
You are attacking BC Hydro who produced a K-13 primer on the water cycle.
Give it a break.
Vancouver Island is dependent on 3 ageing undersea cables and assorted power lines connecting to BC Dams in Northern BC
The hydro generating capacity on Vancouver Island is about 10% of power required so the cables are really important.
20 Years ago Capital Power built a Gas powered Generator. Its capable of 275 MW or about two thirds of power requirement. BC Hydro pays about 55 million per year to have it sit idle. Under peak load the generator runs, such as when its hotter than usual and there is higher power demand.
But it puts out Greenhouse gases. So BC Hydro is ending its contract with Capital Power.
No evidence that CO2 causes climate to change but BC Hydro is putting the Island back to its rather risky situation of 20 years ago. Those undersea cables are at risk if the Earthquake comes.
I don’t know how the power lines from the dams in Northern BC didn’t get damaged so we got lucky this time.
So its you that needs to give it a rest. BC Power is owned by BC government; some of the worst ravening nutters on the face of the earth.
Same Ravening Nutters aren’t ready for a real emergency such as an Earthquake. A bit of extra rain and the whole province transportation network is shut down. God forbid we do actually get a big earthquake here.
> No evidence that CO2 causes climate to change but
I guess that “but” indicates progress, Kennui.
One day at a time:
https://www.dummies.com/education/science/understanding-the-weathers-water-cycle/
ken…”The current flood situation in BC is an extreme weather event”.
***
It’s also a lack of preparedness. We have been preparing religiously for the Big One, meaning earthquake, even though we have never had a big one. Our problem have been years of governments bent on not spending money for infrastructure and making rash decisions.
You mentioned Gordon Campbell, a former mayor of Vancouver. During his tenure, he sold our fireboat because..ta da… we had no history of harbour fires. No sooner had he sold it than the Coast Guard facilites on the harbour burned down.
Here in Richmond, we learned from experience. We used to have dykes made of soil and guess what…the soil eroded during floods. Many a year, Richmond was flooded. Now we have dykes more than 10 feet above the low tide level and they are made of granite blocks about a foot square.
Out in Abbotsford, located near the former Sumas Lake, many time the size of Cultus Lake, floods would increase the size of the lake dramatically, wiping out crops. Now that they have drained it, I guess they thought their troubles were over. Nope. The region is still vulnerable to flooding and nothing has been done over the past century to fix that situation.
https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/sumas-lake-sumas-prairie-barrowtown-pump-station-abbotsford-flooding
” Nonsense. There is nothing to decrease the ice extent in an Arctic winter with little or no Sun for months at a time. ”
Has still not occurred to ignorant dumbies that there are, near and above the Arctic, more and more
– warm ocean currents at the surface
and
– warm poleward advection streams in the troposphere
coming from the Tropics even during the winter, hence the Arctic freezes less and less, even when the Sun doesn’t reach it.
If ignorant dumbies were willing to read and learn, they would understand why Arctic temperatures increase a lot faster than in the Tropics, where sunlit is maximal.
Its warm ocean currents that cause sea ice extent to shrink. The AMOC and PDO are at the neutral points in their phases and will soon cycle to negative. The sea ice extent will then grow again.
Atmosphere might have a bit role to play but the weight is with the ocean currents.
Ken
” The sea ice extent will then grow again. ”
If you were right, then we would see AMOC / AMO cycles in the Arctic sea ice extent data within the last 70 years:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jAiaGWYF2FHmjQDI7BjjwlbdwH3BKeIK/view
There is no cycle corresponding to AMO or whatsoever.
Moreover, everybody talks about AMO’s cycles and their influence on climate.
But they only talk about the detrended AMO.
But the real influence on the climate you can observe only if you use AMO’s original, i.e. undetrended data.
ken…”Its warm ocean currents that cause sea ice extent to shrink.”
***
Maybe in the one month of Arctic summer when temps squeak above 0C. The rest of the year, temps drop well below 0C, a condition in which even sea water freezes.
BTW…during the Little Ice Age, when British explorers were trying to find the NW Passage, from the 17th century to mid 19th century, the ice extent was so severe that ships could not possibly sail through the NW Passage, even in summer.
Even in 1949, nearly 100 years after the LIA ended, the RCMP cutter, St. Roch, failed to make it through from west to east. It took a year to make the trip. On the way back, they sailed through in 87 days.
We are far more recovered from the LIA in 2021, and some ships can make the trip during summer, if they are careful. In winter, there is no way whatsoever.
Ignorant dummies should be locked up Bindi?
In my opinion, this is more of your own secret desire that you are pervertly projecting onto others.
*
Only hidden fans of fascism, who portray bloodthirsty dictators as leftists, and who only refer to the Nazis as leftists because of their fraudulent, mendacious political program – even though they know that the Nazis murdered all leftists in Germany between 1933 and 1945 – should urgently be taken to psychiatry.
Yes, leftists do murder other leftists. Did you figure that out Bindi?
Do leftists privatize state companies too, Troglodyte:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-980570
binny…”Has still not occurred to ignorant dumbies that there are, near and above the Arctic, more and more
– warm ocean currents at the surface
and
– warm poleward advection streams in the troposphere”
***
Tell you what, Binny, you go up to the Arctic and jump in one of those warm current and see how long you last.
Roy has already pointed out the effect of warmer air currents produced by the warming water and the result is a warming of about +5C, in hot spots that move around month to month. That is the worst-case scenario, a reduction in the cooling from about -60C to -55 C.
Kindly explain how ice diminishes when the air temp is -55C.
Robertson
You are again and again and again such an ignorant dumbass who doesn’t know anything.
Try to read instead of writing, because regardless what you write – be it about climate, be it about viruses, be it about the Moon: you fill every day this blog with completely stupid trash.
binny…”regardless what you write be it about climate, be it about viruses, be it about the Moon: you fill every day this blog with completely stupid trash”.
***
Problem is, Binny, you cannot explain why using science. Your entire argument about the Moon is based on an appeal to authority. When you do try to reason, you come up with uncorroborated evidence like warmer currents from the Tropics warming the Arctic to the point there is less ice in the Arctic in winter.
When I try to point out the flaw in your argument, that Arctic temperatures are below 0C for most of the year (11 out of 12 months), you don’t understand. Right now, November 18th, the temperature on Ellesmere Island in Nunavit is -28C. In mid-summer, the average is 3C and the winter average is -40C. The 14 day forecast is more of the same.
How the heck do your warmer ocean current raise the temperature from -28C? Heck, by the time they reach the latitude of Vancouver, Canada, on the Pacific Coast of Vancouver island, the ocean water is so cold you could not stand in it ankle deep. In summer its so cold, surfers need to use wet suits.
If you stayed in the water more than an half an hour this time of year you’d die of hypothermia. Can you imagine how cold it must be in the Arctic Ocean?
Try to read instead of writing, because regardless what you write be it about climate, be it about viruses, be it about the Moon: you fill every day this blog with completely stupid trash.
Gordo the self proclaimed engineer can’t understand that the Arctic Ocean does not freeze solid, only producing a relatively thin cover of sea-ice at the surface during the freeze season. That’s because the sea-ice acts as insulation, the effect of which increases as the ice thickens.
It’s another example of “heat transfer” where the thickness tends toward some average and the extent grows then shrinks thru the cycle. It’s directly analogous to the situation with soil, where the yearly variation declines with depth, such that for many temperate locations, the ground never freezes below a certain depth, while for other areas, the ground will be permanently frozen below some depth. You know, in the Arctic, it’s called “Permafrost”, where the soil can melt on the surface in summer but freeze in winter.
ken…”There is no science involved in BCs Climate Change Agenda”.
***
Nor are our covid policies. The NDP government is butt-kissing to authority figures like the US CD-C , FDA, and/or the WHO, and all three have ties to the pharmaceutical industry.
tim…”…as it moves to that lower orbit, it loses PE and gains KE. It gains speed”.
***
It gains KE without any force being applied to increase its velocity????
rlh…”Regardless of the direction of release, it would still end up in an elliptical orbit, not an inward spiral one”.
***
You make incredibly simplified and naive statements about orbital mechanics without offering even a slight explanation based on physics.
rlh…here’s a hint.
The basic equation (simplified) for the Moon orbiting the Earth is f = mv^2/r
f = gravitational force on Moon, m = mass of Moon, v = tangential velocity of Moon, r = distance centre to centre from Moon to Earth.
The only instant you could apply that equation to the Moon orbiting the Sun, if Earth’s gravity were suddenly turned off, would occur when the Moon was on the far side of the Earth from the Sun on a radial line from Sun’s centre, through Earth’s centre, to Moon’s centre. At that instant, the Moon’s velocity vector would be pointed tangential to the Earth-Sun orbit.
There you have it…f = mv^2/r
find r = a radial line from Sun’s centre to Moon’s centre. Find r to Earth’s centre and add to r (Earth to Moon). In metres.
Find force the sun applies to the Moon:
f = GMm/r^2…same r calculated above.
Now find what velocity the Moon would require to maintain an orbit around the Sun. You’ll find that its current velocity is far too low and as Clint claimed, the Moon would lose altitude and spiral into the Sun.
Remember, the equation only applies at the instant the Moon is in the position described above. When it is between the Earth and the Sun, on the same radial line, it is moving in the opposite direction to the Earth’s motion around the Sun.
Suppose the initial condition (Moon on far side of Earth) is at 6 o’clock. With Moon inside the Earth on radial line, let that be 12 o’clock.
Consider Moon in Earth orbit at 3 o’clock. It’s tangential velocity is pointed right at the Sun. At 9 o’clock, it’s tangential velocity direction is pointed straight away from the Sun.
If gravity is turned off at 3 o’clock, the Moon keeps going straight into the Sun. If it is turned off at 9 o’clock, it flies directly away from Sun. The Moon can fly off in 360 degrees worth of directions, and more.
“If gravity is turned off at 3 oclock, the Moon keeps going straight into the Sun”
It adds a small offset to the elliptical orbit to make it slightly more exaggerated. It does NOT turn it into a spiral. Ever.
Gordon, I put up the numbers yesterday.
The Earth/Moon system orbits the Sun at a tangential velocity of 30km/second.
The Moon orbits the Earth at a tangential velocity of 1km/second.
If Earth’s gravity were switched off, the Moon would continue to orbit the Sun at somewhere between 29 and 31km/second.
To put that into context, Mars orbits at 24km/sec and Venus at 35km/second.
The Moon’s orbital distance from the Sun might change by a few %, hardly noticeable in the larger context.
Ent, like the others you do not understand vectors, physics, or orbital motion. It’s easy to tell from comments from you, RLH, Folkerts, bob, Norman, and the other cult idiots, that none of you has ever had a basic course in vectors, let alone vector calculus.
I can’t teach such topics to braindead cult idiots, but a simple vector has a “magnitude” AND a “direction”. Your “somewhere between 29 and 31km/second” ONLY mentions the “magnitude”.
That’s why these discussions go on and on. You cult idiots can’t learn, and you reject reality.
A “thinking” person would be interested in “truth” and “reality”. Cult members reject both. Enjoy your sci-fi. That’s all it’s good for — entertainment.
Read it again. I was discussing tangential velocities.
Last time I looked, they are vector quantities.
See Ent, you don’t understand any of this.
Moon’s orbital linear velocity is represented by a vector acting on Moon’s CENTER OF MASS.
For those who understand vectors, it is obvious that the moon’s net velocity is within ~ 1/30 radian ie ~ 2 degrees of the direction of earth’s velocity around the sun. A 2 degree change in direction is not much. and is not going to send the moon off in an ‘unstable orbit’ or ‘pulled into the sun’ or ‘thrown out of the solar system’ or any other such nonsense.
The 2 degrees change in direction will cause a small change in eccentricity. That is it.
Something like a 90% change in either magnitude or direction would be needed to send the moon crashing into the sun. (If Clint wants a more exact number, maybe he could use his advanced knowledge of vector calculus and orbital mechanics to find the exact answer. )
Did they teach you the meaning of the word vectored in those vector calculus courses you claim to have taken Clint R.
I don’t think so, as you are misusing the term.
Thanks Folkerts, I do need to update your growing list of “perversions of physics”.
Folkert’s Perversions of Physics
1) Moon rotates about its axis.
2) Ball-on-a-string is not a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”.
3) Fluxes add
4) Ice cubes can boil water
5) A jet flying overhead has angular momentum.
6) S/B Law no longer is valid.
7) Mt. Everest rotates on its axis
8) Vectors don’t add
9) Circular motion is not an oscillation
10) If a body does not have enough tangential velocity to maintain its orbit, gravity will provide it.
As to your confusion about this new nonsense, Moon’s motion after Earth is gone will depend on where Moon was in its orbit when “released”. If it gets vectored to a lower orbit, it may not have enough velocity to sustain that orbit. Consequently, it will move lower and lower. You’re wrong that gravity can add enough velocity for it to maintain orbit. You’re confusing the gain in velocity due to Sun, as Moon nears perihelion. That gain in velocity is negated by the loss of velocity as Moon moves away from perihelion. Gravity can NOT increase the average orbital velocity of Moon.
Again, I will not respond if you don’t obey the rules. (See upthread, if you don’t have the rules memorized.)
Clint R,
If you want people to think you understand vectors, you might want to rephrase this sentence.
“Moons orbital linear velocity is represented by a vector acting on Moons CENTER OF MASS.’
This would be better
The Moon’s orbital velocity is represented by a vector indicating the direction the Moon is moving towards as an arrow with the tip of the arrow indicating the direction and the length of the shaft indicating the magnitude of the velocity.
Or you can keep looking like a fool, your choice.
I do vectors all the time. I can add or subtract them at will. Even when they are at different angles. Navigation requires you to be able to do that as a prerequisite.
Try calculating speed over the ground on a boat without them.
Quick lesson in orbital mechanics. Let
M = mass of sun
m = mass of satellite << M
R = 1 AU
E = GMm/r
For a stable circular orbit with a radius R, any satellite will have:
v = (GM/R)^0.5
PE = -E
KE = 1/2 E
U = PE + KE = -1/2 E
Suppose we launch a new satellite with 1/2 this speed (a MUCH bigger change that anything we are talking about with the moon). Initially,
v = 1/2 (GM/R)^0.5
PE = -E
KE = 1/8 E
U = PE + KE = -7/8 E
This is too slow for a stable circular orbit, and the satellite will 'spiral in toward the sun'. By conservation of energy, U =-7/8 E will remain constant. As the distance to the sun decreases, the potential energy decreases (becomes more negative) and the KE increases (it moves faster).
It turns out that when the satellite reaches r = 8/14 R, it is going fast enough for a stable circular orbit r that distance (U = -14/8 U, KE = +7/8 U. The satellite will actually move in closer, picking up more speed so that it is TOO fast for a stable circular orbit. When it picks up enough speed, it will actually stop moving in closer. But the speed is too great now for a stable circular orbit, so it 'spirals back out'.
Yep! it turns out it takes 1/2 the orbit to 'spiral in' and the next 1/2 to 'spiral out'. An ellipse if you go into more detail. Just like Newton figured out.
Specifically, the satellite does NOT keep spiraling in, as some seem to imagine.
Typo: E = GMm/R (not “r”)
(and actually all this works for any R, not just R = 1 AU. That is the beauty of using symbols, rather than specific numbers.)
Bonus fact: for any circular orbit due to gravity, PE = -2 KE
Wrong again, Folkerts. You’re still trying to increase the average orbital velocity using gravity. You’ve already tried that perversion of physics:
10) If a body does not have enough tangential velocity to maintain its orbit, gravity will provide it.
Use your imagination. Surely you can come up with some new perversion.
If anyone thinks there is a problem with anything I wrote, then find the error in the equations or calculations.
If your understanding of physics is too meager for that, then you don’t know enough to comment intelligently.
The equations aren’t the problem, Folkerts. It’s your understanding of physics that’s the problem. I explained it upthread. Here it is again:
You’re wrong that gravity can add enough velocity for it [Moon] to maintain orbit. You’re confusing the gain in velocity due to Sun, as Moon nears perihelion. That gain in velocity is negated by the loss of velocity as Moon moves away from perihelion. Gravity can NOT increase the average orbital velocity of Moon.
Once more, for emphasis: Gravity can NOT increase the average orbital velocity of Moon.
If you have questions, I’ll try to help, if you obey the rules.
Gravity does not increase the average orbital velocity of Moon.
Here is the issue at hand, Clint. Your claim that:
“If [the moon] gets vectored to a lower orbit, it may not have enough velocity to sustain that orbit. Consequently, it will move lower and lower. You’re wrong that gravity can add enough velocity for it to maintain orbit.”
This is false. In the example of the moon, it could be ‘vectored lower’ by
a) the earth disappearing at 3rd quarter, when the moon is orbiting toward the sun (ie 30 km/s forward and 1 km/s inward)
b) the earth disappearing at new moon, when the moon is moving forward slowest (ie 29 km/s rather than 30 km/s).
The equations clearly show that gravity can and does add enough KE (and hence enough speed) to establish a new elliptical orbit. Even if the moon were ‘vectored down’ to 15 km/s it would orbit. The orbit would be quite elliptical and pass much closer to the sun than 1 AU, but it can’t just keep ‘spiraling in’.
“[the gain in velocity due to Sun, as Moon nears perihelion] is negated by the loss of velocity as Moon moves away from perihelion.”
Interestingly, that is exactly what my equations show and exactly what I claimed. So I don’t know what your point might be here.
And specifically, over the course of each cycle the speed changes in the same way, so each orbit has the same average orbital speed. So gravity is not ‘increasing the average orbital speed’.
The increase in velocity approaching perihelion is lost departing perihelion. Gravity does NOT increase average orbital speed.
This has been explained to you twice before. This is your last strike.
It’s time for you to come up with a new perversion of physics.
If a body does not have enough tangential velocity to maintain A CIRCULAR orbit, gravity will provide it BY PULLING THE BODY INTO A SMALLER ORBIT WITH HIGHER AVERAGE KINETIC ENERGY.
This has been explained to you at least three times already. I never said anything remotely like “gravity increases the average speed of an orbit”. You really need to work on your reading skills. At5 a minimum, quote what I actually said, rather than projecting your misunderstandings on to me.
Okay, here are your own words:
“If a body does not have enough tangential velocity to maintain A CIRCULAR orbit, gravity will provide it BY PULLING THE BODY INTO A SMALLER ORBIT WITH HIGHER AVERAGE KINETIC ENERGY.
See the problem?
The problem is here — at the beginning:
“If Earth were to disappear, Moon would not have enough linear velocity to establish an orbit around Sun, or to escape Sun. It would be pulled into Sun.”
The moon would not get “pulled into the sun”. The moon travels around the sun at about 30 +/- 1 km/s. If the earth ‘disappeared’, the moon would be travelling somewhere between about 29 and 31 km/s.
* At 29 km/s, the moon would get pulled into a *slightly* smaller elliptical orbit.
* At 31 km/s, the moon would swing out into a *slightly* larger elliptical orbit.
If you can’t accept your initial error and correct it, there is no point in continuing.
Well Folkerts, you must have finally figured out your mistake. Now you’re trying to fling distractions. Your problem is we’ve already covered that distraction. The rule is only ONE issue at a time.
And the current issue is that gravity can NOT increase the average orbital velocity of Moon. You tried to pervert physics, claiming that is could. But you were WRONG. You got caught.
Now you’re hinting that you want to bail. That’s not a problem for me. I’m documenting your perversions of physics. Everytime you attempt to pervert physics, I will simply add to the list.
That’s why this is so much fun.
“gravity can NOT increase the average orbital velocity of Moon”
The problem is that the minimum and maximum velocities are the same for a circular orbit but the minimum and maximum velocities are different for an elliptical orbit. The averages will be the same regardless.
One issue at a time, Clint. The first issue.
“If Earth were to disappear, Moon would not have enough linear velocity to establish an orbit around Sun, or to escape Sun. It would be pulled into Sun.”
Do you realize yet you were wrong? Do you want to clarify what you meant?
Wrong Folkerts. I’ve already addressed that issue:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-1009327
You’re bouncing all over the place now. You are no longer obeying the rules. You’ve lost, so you’re just looking for more stuff to throw at that wall, hoping something will stick. That’s why I have to have rules for idiots like you. I don’t have time for endless keyboard exercises. When you no longer go by the rules, you are basically admitting defeat.
I’ll be watching for your next attempt to pervert physics. Just remember, you can fool the braindead, but you can’t fool reality.
Addressing incorrectly is not addressing, Clint.
You ‘clarified’ with: “Moon’s actual fate would depend on where it was in orbit, when Earth disappeared. Any slowing of its linear speed, or any vectoring toward Sun, would seal its fate. ”
No. Any scenario of the earth ‘disappearing’ leaves the moon orbiting — just is a slightly different ellipse. A stable, elliptical orbit about 1 AU from the sun is the only “fate” possible. No possible scenario leads to the moon crashing into the sun.
You can’t seem to admit this simple truth. Just say it. Say “I was wrong. If the earth disappeared (no matter which way it was ‘vectoring’), the moon would continue in a very similar orbit and not crash into the sun”.
“9) Circular motion is not an oscillation”
I think I have addresses all of Clint’s other misunderstanding on this list.
Clint fails a very basic bit of logic that can be illustrated as follows.
* Cats are Mammals
* Dogs are not Cats
* Therefore Dogs are not Mammals
Of course, that is absurd.
Similarly, it is just as absurd to take two correct statements I made:
*Sinusoidal motions are oscillations
*Circular motions are not Sinusoidal motions
and to think this implies I think circular motions are not oscillations. Just like cats and dogs are two different, disjoint types of mammals, Sinusoidal motions and Circular motions are two different, disjoint types of oscillations.
But at 3 o’clock the Moon is not traveling straight towards the Sun, due to the tilt of the Moon’s orbit.
It has a significant velocity vector that will move it out of the elliptic, so it will miss the Sun.
Gordon says: “When [the moon] is between the Earth and the Sun, on the same radial line, it is moving in the opposite direction to the Earth’s motion around the Sun.”
No, moon is moving the SAME direction around the sun as the earth, just slightly slower.
Drive a truck at 30 m/s. Now walk in a circle in the back of the truck at 1 m/s. You are ALWAYS moving forward. Sometimes slightly faster; some times slightly slower; sometimes slightly to the side. But always about 30 m/s forward.
“Drive a truck at 30 m/s. Now walk in a circle in the back of the truck at 1 m/s. You are ALWAYS moving forward. Sometimes slightly faster; some times slightly slower; sometimes slightly to the side. But always about 30 m/s forward.”
Pretty good analogy.
Instead of walking in the back of truck, you could be on roller skates.
But it’s got similar problem as Merry-go-round.
But if driving on friction less surface of large sphere.
And jump up out the truck {the truck “disappears”]
Then can sort give a clue about Hohmann.
Though replace gravity with force of a magnet.
No, I guess gravity works- but you have figure how much gravity-
magnet force might be easier.
Or how big space is, is hard to include in any analogy.
I think in LEO and using gun, works better. You got up and down and sideways.
Flat bed truck. two poles and loop string. Two poles could be pretty close together- could be just one pole which not circular.
Skating in circle held into this circle by string.
Truck is driving on huge circle like 1000 km diameter, and so one is roughly driving straight ahead.
And once let go of string, you landing on a frictionless surface.
Still don’t have attraction of sun.
so circle is a bowl [like sun’s gravity well}. Well more like a flat funnel which inversely squared gets steeper. So, 1000 km in diameter with funnel bottom hole about 1 km in diameter.
[Someone should make inversely squared funnel so that people know what looks like. Like 10 inch diameter and goes to point and cut it
to make size hole in the bottom. Probably someone already has done this- it’s universal shape.]
Yup:
https://pv-productions.com/new-funnel-gravity-well/F
“Someone should make inversely squared funnel …”
Actually, *potential energy* varies as 1/r for gravity. To model this at the surface of the earth with a uniform gravity, the funnel should have a -1/r curve. Then the slope will be dy/dr = d/dr(-r^-1) = r^-2. The 1/r^2 *slope* will represent the 1/r^2 force.
Go try Kerbal Space program as a good example of how orbital mechanics actually works. There you will find that ALL orbits are elliptical and a single application of force never ends up with a spiral of any sort.
Have you ever played with it? It is quite interesting and removes a lot of assumptions that people have.
Here is another simple simulation of orbits.
https://phet.colorado.edu/en/simulations/gravity-and-orbits
ken…”BC Power is owned by BC government; some of the worst ravening nutters on the face of the earth”.
***
Just barely. Ironically, BC Hydro began its life as BC Electric, after private electric suppliers were nationalized by a right winger, WAC Bennett who’s views were right of Attila the Hun. That’s right, a right-wing government took over the electric utility.
That’s why I keep telling Steve that you can’t tell a book by its cover. Some right-wingers are just as bad as their left-wing counterparts.
During the next 50 or so years, descendants of Bennett and his party sold off parts of Hydro to private interests in the Bahamas!!! They hung onto the power distribution side of Hydro simply because it would have been suicide to sell it off and have private utilities drive up the price of our cheap and clean electrical power.
Hydro also used to run the transit system since much of it was electrically operated trolley buses. Transportation in BC was much better under Hydro than it is now. Sadly, BC Hydro has been run into the ground and the government current mob, a load of bleeding heart whatever they are, who used to champion Hydro, are content to leave it mired in oblivion.
The only one of them with any guts, our attorney general, David Eby, has had to call local municipalities on the rug for refusing to provide affordable housing. Surrey just turned down an affordable high-rise project for the disabled because local whiners claimed it was too high. Eby has threatened to overrule the black-hearted SOBs like Surrey and drop their funding if they don’t comply.
Good for him. One good guy is a government of yes-men/butt-kissers.
I think BC Hydro should be the crown corporation that it is.
Unfortunate it is that people in government have sold off bits of it to private owners. I am particularly against having BC Hydro give power contracts to wind, solar, run-of-river etc at very favorable rates. The 55 million a year for the gas plant to sit idle most of the time on Vancouver Island is one such sweet deal that leads me to have sour thoughts.
If the high rise project is too high then why not build something in accordance with the bylaws? I am aware of low rise housing in Holland. Try Google Earth 21 Donjon Vianen Utrecht. These are small one bedroom apartments with no frills. Heat is provided as well as a limited amount of hot water. They do not impose much of a skyline issue.
I have seen welfare housing in places like Toronto. It really causes major problems in whatever neighborhood they are imposed on. Community leaders are right to be circumspect.
Housing went up 18% this year; a direct consequence of money printing by our Liberal government. Its the big cities that are voting Liberal. The social cost is on the voters.
I didn’t know you were for government investments in renewables, Kennui.
Baby steps.
Way back when I got the red pill. My ‘plan’ for building a wind turbine and selling electricity to the grid ended when I found BC was generating power at 2 cents per kwh. Any wind turbine needed to make 8 cents per kwh in order to break even. The math didn’t work.
Now I am not in favor of renewables at all. Solar and Wind are not ‘Green’. I abhor the idea of covering huge swathes of land with solar panels and wind turbines. I live in fear of someone building a wind turbine within 30km of my home and causing infrasonic noise nuisance. It still doesn’t make economic sense until government pays the subsidies. Then I pay higher rates and higher taxes for less reliable electricity. No thanks.
Cheapest power comes from large scale hydro followed by coal gas oil and nuclear.
Solar has a future in space if we can ever figure out how to get power from space to earth but otherwise its a niche application. In space it is raining soup and we don’t even have a bowl.
You’ll have to tell your war stories to someone else, Kennui:
https://www.innergex.com/wp-https://www.innergex.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Q3-2021-REPORT_EN.pdf
You’re right about putting “plan” in quotes, however.
For those who have a brain and therefore avoid dumb statements like
” When I try to point out the flaw in your argument, that Arctic temperatures are below 0C for most of the year (11 out of 12 months), you dont understand. ”
here is a monthly split of the Arctic sea ice extent:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/17VO7XXcl1IOv63WEYOoDVmpkFdQmnkYg/view
The monthly trends for 1979-now are as follows (in Mkm^2 / decade)
Jan -0.43
Feb -0.45
Mar -0.41
Apr -0.39
May -0.37
Jun -0.48
Jul -0.71
Aug -0.77
Sep -0.84
Oct -0.85
Nov -0.54
Dec -0.44
Year -0.55
All trends with SE around +- 0.05.
As we all can see, no one would like to swim in these cold Arctic oceans, but as cold as they may be, they nonetheless manage to gnaw at the sea ice, even in the winter!
But… the Moon does not rotate about its polar axis, viruses do not exist, even time doesn’t and since it doesn’t exist, it can’t dilate.
So are the dumbies.
Source
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/monthly/data/
{ You have to use a client or a program like ‘wget’ to view or download that data: most browsers have stopped supporting the ftp protocol. }
Braindead-idon, before you start “preaching”, you should examine your own flaws. You reject reality. You reject the simple analogy of a ball-on-a-string. Rejecting reality is why you’re a braindead cult idiot.
Clint R
You are wise to avoid science fiction.
You repeatedly demonstrate that you are incapable of understanding base reality. Alternative realities would even harder to grasp.
Do circumnavigating passenger jets fly backwards, “Mr. Sci-Fi”?
According to Clint R circumnavigating passenger jets fly backwards, however that is not the case in reality as they rotate once on an axis per rev. like our moon keeping same face towards Earth.
A passenger jet flying Eastwards at noon is flying forwards at 600mph relative to the Earth’s surface and is being carried backwards around the Earth’s orbit at 30km/second.
Both statements are true, depending on your choice of reference frame.
This has been a persistent blind spot of yours, the inability
to imagine movement relative to anything except your personal viewpoint.
…sure, but that’s not what is meant by "do circumnavigating passenger jets fly backwards". I was there when that originated. It is a reference to your belief that circumnavigating jets are rotating on their own axes throughout the journey in order to keep the underside of the aircraft oriented towards the ground. If that were the case, but during the flight the aircraft did not continuously rotate on its own axis [as you understand it], and instead remained oriented towards a fixed star as it circumnavigated the globe, then at certain points on its journey it would have to be flying backwards, and even sideways.
> It is a reference
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo. It’s just a Moon Dragon Crank meme that Pup uses to get back in the game. Like Joe’s flat Earth meme.
Speaking of which, did you know that the Earth was mostly decarbonated water?
I replied to Ent: A “thinking” person would be interested in “truth” and “reality”. Cult members reject both.
Then as soon as I reminded him that he had once made the case that passenger jets fly backwards, he jumped in, sticking with that perversion of reality. They can’t wait to prove me right.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Airplane have gyro’s which are continuously adjusted during ‘level’ flight to keep them parallel to the surface.
A circumnavigating passenger jet is not rotating on its own axis.
… more or less than once per rev. keeping same face to Earth.
Incorrect.
DREMT, remember you wrote: two different ways of describing the same motion.
Only one of which is correct.
How do you know, Kiddo?
Back in my days, equivalence meant something.
*Automatic Response*
I have put Willard on ignore.
*Automatic Response*
DREMT is wrong about everything.
No, I really have put Willard on ignore.
No DREMT is really wrong on everything.
No RLH is really wrong on everything.
Oops! Flying westwards at noon the aircraft is flying backwards at 30km/second -600mph. Flying Eastwards it is flying forwards at 30km/second+600mph.
When in a radiative equilibrium, a faster rotating planet (everything else equals) should necessarily be a warmer planet!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“but suppose to be strange because small part will remain sunlight- top part??”
I missed seeing lunar eclipse. So all I got is pictures from internet:
https://news.yahoo.com/lunar-eclipse-2021-stunning-pictures-120553910.html
And from pictures, it seems Moon was sunlit on bottom part.
Or moon was far away, and earth shadow therefore larger. And most Earth’s shadow was mostly above the Moon.
Anyhow I was distracted with idea of what happens if you in 300 km orbit of Earth, and you a gun which can make a bullet go 1 km/sec and you shoot it straight up {or away from the Earth}.
And I thought that was easier than what happens you shoot gun in the opposite direction {directly at Earth}.
Anyhow, I am not good with Math.
Also after leaving the cold 54 F night, I was looking at some table in the back of book about spacecraft designing. And found it gave numbers for delta-v to change 1 degree of inclination with elevation of orbit you are at. So get book…
300 km: m/s: 138.84 per 1 degree
Also other stuff I failed to notice before.
So if at 300 km at 0 inclination {at equator} and you want change it to a 1 degree inclination, it requires 138.84 m/s of delta-v,
or if want 10 degree change it requires 1348.4 m/s.
Or the 1000 m/s gun can’t alter the vector by 10 degree.
So gun’s bullet can’t alter the vector by 10 degree, sideway or up.
So bullet going up straight up can’t go up at 10 degrees.
Going down is different as gravity helps you and going up it reduces it further.
So 1000 / 138.84 = 7.2 degrees inclination change.
And it’s less going up. And more going down
[Gravity loss and gravity gain]
I was under impression the 10 degree inclination change would cost more delta-v. I would have guessed 2 km/sec or more.
So anyhow someone doing the math for me, was helpful.
But it’s far more complicated, than this. So, I haven’t got the answer of what happens if shoot the bullet straight up or straight down {90 degree up or down} but it’s useful clue.
And of course hohmann straight ahead or behind, works better in terms raising or lower the orbital height.
Oh also table give that number for de-orbiting, which around where I thought it was:
300 km needs: -74 m/s
So need reduce the 7.726 km to 7726 – 74 = 7,652 m/s
So from ISS and gun one easily hit earth if fire gun in the correct direction. And powerful gun of 1 km/sec will make bullet vapor in atmosphere more quickly, whereas 100 m/s stroke of golf club, might have some of golf ball hit Earth surface, in about 45 min after you hit it.
So, what what this guess?
7.726 km times 2 = 15.452
7.726 km times 4 = 30.904
Four times 138.84 = 555.36
It takes 555 m/s to change inclination of a 30 km/sec
orbital velocity by 1 degree.
Or 5.55 km/sec to change by 10 degree inclination.
Or one say, you “wasting” 5.55 km/sec of delta-v
if do a non hohmann to go to Mars or Venus by changing
inclination by 10 degree.
Hohmann = no change in vector, other than adding or removing
to the velocity {to in this case of 30 km/sec- reduce 30 km/sec to go to Venus, and add to the 30 km/sec to get to Mars}.
So, here is cosmic train schedule:
http://clowder.net/hop/railroad/sched.html
Which give when to leave Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, and Jupiter
and when arrive at any of them, From decade ago to decades into future. They are simple hohmann, which transfer which takes “longest time” but are least delta-V. But not precise in terms of delta-v needed as that is way to complicated. Instead it’s about an average.
Earth to Mars: 2.9448 km/sec and from Mars back: 2.6490 km/sec
Earth to Venus: 2.4955 km/sec and back to Earth: 2.7067 km/sec
So, add that to earth’s orbital velocity to get to Mars or
remove that to get to Venus. And when arriving at Venus from Earth you will be going faster, and when arrive at Mars you will going slower {but they have gravity wells].
If no planet there:
Add 2.9448 km/sec to 30 km and get to Mars slower Mars 24 km/sec, and return to Earth going 2.9448 faster than 30 km/sec.
Or don’t need to “waste” 5.55 km/sec to get to Mars or Venus.
But if do this one “could” shorten the distance travel- get to them faster.
So, 1 km/sec bullet may not reach earth in 10 mins or less rather than 45 mins. But 2 km/sec bullet probably would, but bad analogy as the bullet hit Earth and burns up.
Or one simply add, say, 5.55 km to the 30 km/sec, if want to get to Mars quicker and also “burn up”.
Instead you want non hohmann to has trajectory that arrive at Mars at slower velocity than the velocity of simply hohmann.
What slower arrival velocity at Mars than earth to Mars simple hohmann? A Venus to Mars simple hohmann or Mercury to Mars simple hohmann is even slower than from Venus. Or both Venus and Mercury
have shorter distance traveled to Mars, the distance travel from Earth to Mars. And largely because shorter, faster travel times to Mars.
As above schedule indicates.
No matter how you do it, it has to non hohmann which gets to Mars faster than simple hohmann. NASA gets to Mars quicker by hohmann like transfer with patched conic [delta-v which changes the vector}. Nuclear rockets or anything, like Starship Enterprise, uses non hohmann pathways if going Earth to Mars.
Anyways, why I am interested.
Back to if Earth disappears where can the Moon go?
The Moon has the 30 km/sec velocity. As would something in LEO have it.
So if going 7.726 km in 300 km orbit at equator, and Earth disappears, where does our spacecraft, go?
It still can’t hit the sun. But with hohmann just about anywhere else in solar system, and could do non hohmanns to Venus or Mars.
I got a puzzle or could call trick question or gotcha depending your frame of mind.
First a statement something close to “the truth”, with spacecraft in LEO, if does hohmann [and doesn’t get interfered with, such as hit something] it will return to earth distance, and back to where went, and back to Earth distance again, etc.
Question where does it return to, if it’s not a hohmann transfer?
{I gave some clues, and I don’t regard it as trick question, it’s puzzle or it could be fun to think about. And any headache is on you.]
A Hohmann transfer orbit to Mars is an elliptical orbit around the Sun with a periastron at Earth’s orbital distance, 150 million km, and an apoastron at Mars orbital distance, 228 million km.
Travelling from Earth to Mars, you burn to leave Earth orbit and accelerate enough to gain the necessary extra orbital velocity. You time the launch so that when you arrive at apoastron after about nine months Mars is nearby. You then need a further burn to get into orbit around Mars and wait for the right moment to return to Earth.
If you let the transfer orbit continue without going into orbit around Mars, you will return to Earth’s orbit after another nine months, but the Earth will not be there. It will probably be on the other side of the Sun
About 9 months is simple, simple is used for cargo. With humans the plan is to get them there in 6 to 7 months {using Hohmann {not simple Hohmann} + rocket power for vector change.
I think NASA should send crew to Mars in 3 months or less.
I also think NASA should also use Venus orbit to get to Mars and to get to Earth via Venus orbit.
Using Venus roughly doubles launch windows to Mars and back Earth.
“If you let the transfer orbit continue without going into orbit around Mars, you will return to Earths orbit after another nine months, but the Earth will not be there.”
Using Venus orbit, helps with that problem.
Using “using Hohmann {not simple Hohmann} + rocket power for vector change” to and from Venus significantly reduces travel time.
From Venus one get to Earth in about 3 months, and 4 months to Mars.
But just simple: Venus to Earth [or Earth to Venus]
0.3999 Years
http://clowder.net/hop/railroad/VE.htm
Venus to Mars:
0.5954 Years
And simple from Earth to Mars:
0.5954 Years
One also send cargo via Venus with twice trip windows.
As compared to limiting it to just Earth to Mars and Mars to Earth.
And simple from Earth to Mars:
0.5954 Years
{copy paste screw up}:
0.7087 Years
http://clowder.net/hop/railroad/EMa.htm
“The Solar Cycle 25 Prediction Panel predicted in December 2019 that solar cycle 25 will be similar to solar cycle 24, with the preceding solar cycle minimum in April 2020 (± 6 months), and the number of sunspots reaching a (smoothed) maximum of 115 in July 2025 (± 8 months)” – wiki
November 12, 2021
“Solar Cycle 25 is heating up! Will this new solar cycle be a wild one or a washout? Learn more about predictions regarding the next solar cycle, sunspots, solar flares, and auroras!”
https://www.almanac.com/content/solar-cycle-updates-and-predictions
And:
“The Old Farmer’s Almanac pays attention to solar science as it’s one of the disciplines employed in the making of our long-range weather predictions. Our founder, Robert B. Thomas, who started this almanac back in 1792, believed that weather on Earth was influenced by sunspots, which are magnetic storms on the surface of the Sun.”
“”According to NOAA/NASA and international experts: “Cycle 25 will be similar in size to Cycle 24, preceded by a long, deep minimum. Solar Cycle 25 may have a slow start, but is anticipated to peak with solar maximum occurring between 2023 and 2026, and a sunspot range of 95 to 130. This is well below the average number of sunspots, which typically ranges from 140 to 220 sunspots per solar cycle.”
Specifically, the experts predicted: a peak in July, 2025 (+/- 8 months), with a smoothed sunspot number (SSN) of 115.”
Well it seems me it’s like 24, but like 24, 25 seems to steep increase in beginning. Or starts long period of no spot, then jumps up with something like a cliff {or small cliff} or seems we get to 115 fairly quick [within few months].
But wonder how long the +100 spots could last. Could we done by next time next year? Or is going take a year to even get close to +100 spots. And/or are going have double peak like 24?
“No one has yet been able to verify whether there is CO2 ice in any of these cold traps, but this study supports the idea that there are regions so shaded and perpetually cold that ice could survive. There is direct evidence that CO2 exists on the moon, too. In 2009, NASA’s Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) deliberately threw a piece of rocket debris into a lunar crater at high speed to create a plume of material that reached into space. The probe then analyzed the plume and detected CO2 and water molecules.
This fact, paired with the new map of cold regions means that, “these cold traps should really contain CO2,” Schorghofer says. But the next step would be for a mission to go out and verify that by exploration.”
https://www.popsci.com/science/moon-carbon-dioxide-cold-traps/
Linked: https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/
I endlessly talk about lunar water, but lunar CO2 could be better than lunar water.
Or lunar water or CO2 is mostly about getting the O2.
I was aware of possibility of CO2. But issue of H20 or CO2 is how much of it.
If there a lot of it, CO2 is better- it’s cheaper way to get O2.
Now you need hydrogen, but I was already think you might import a lot of LH2 to the Moon.
Or whether lunar water in mineable, depends on whether LOX, can sold for $1000 per kg or less. If you make LOX at $500 per kg with CO2 vs $1000 per kg with water, CO2 is better even if importing LH2 from Earth is $10,000 per kg.
Of course I assuming could be some CO2, CO, and Methane, and some H2. But Lunar polar region is dry as bone, but lot of CO2, the Moon could be mineable.
How is CO2 cracked?
With difficulty!
http://carbon.atomistry.com/decomposition_carbon_dioxide.html
Sabatier reaction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction
“The Sabatier reaction or Sabatier process produces methane and water from a reaction of hydrogen with carbon dioxide at elevated temperatures (optimally 300–400 °C) and pressures (perhaps 3 MPa ) in the presence of a nickel catalyst. ”
So going to need hydrogen. Makes, 1 Methane and 2 H20.
Mining water on Moon is hard, it similar to getting water from dirt in your back yard.
Hence, why water is worth about $500 per kg on lunar surface. And Mars water is worth about $1 per kg.
Now depends on what is on the Moon. There could be more methane than CO2. And could more than what imagine of H2.
Or some arguing about the H detected is just H2 rather than H20.
CO also on Moon.
But also nothing on the Moon is worth anything, if there is not enough to it.
For instance, Mars has a lot CO2.
Mars CO2 is similar to Earth’s O2- we mine our atmosphere for O2 and we get cheap rocket fuel {Earth LOX is 10 cents per kg}. And Mars liquid CO2 could around same price- if mining a lot it.
But what important about Mars is how cheap water can be, because human need a lot of water. Need water as water on Mars.
On Moon need water to make O2 for rocket fuel. And lessor importance is the H2 you get from H20.
If split water to make rocket fuel, you get a surplus of O2.
This surplus supports idea of exporting LOX from the Moon and/or support idea of importing LH2 to the Moon from Earth.
Or even though lunar water and LOX is expensive, one could export LOX and lunar water from the Moon.
So with CO2 you getting methane + 2 H20.
Split water, split 9 kg of H2, get 1 kg of hydrogen and 8 kg.
For LH2 + LOX rocket use 6 kg of LOX and 1 Kg giving 2 kg of extra LOX per 9 kg of water. Methane needs O2 for liquid Methane + LOX rocket.
SpaceX’s rocket is 2.7 kg LOX to 1 kg of Methane.
I hate math.
If burn, methane, I get what? Mostly water and …
CH4+2O2→CO2+2H2O C H 4 + 2 O 2 → C O 2 + 2 H 2 O
And rocket fuel use less oxygen to get more thrust
12 + 4 and 2 x 16 times 2
16 of CH4 + 32 + 32 oxygen of mixture 16 kg methane to 64 kg oxygen or 1 methane to 4 oxygen. And rocket burns 1 to 2.7
And C O 2 + 2 H 2 O is 12 + 32 and times 2 of 2 + 16 is 36
44 kg CO2 and 36 kg H20 from 80 kg methane and oxygen in which
there is 4 times as much oxygen as methane burnt
When 2.7 times of oxygen is burn, one should get more CO rather than CO2.
But to point, get 2 oxygen extra 16 + 16 = 32 and a 16 methane and need 64 oxygen at 1 to 4, but doing 1 to 2.7 or a bit of “shortage” rather surplus.
Which is solved by getting more O2. Compared having surplus of O2. The Moon mass is 40% oxygen- water or CO2 is only significant as it’s cheaper way to get the Oxygen.
Or one mine more CO2 and add some water which also mined.
Or mine mostly water and add some CO2 and other stuff which also mine. Or import LH2 from earth. Though if doing large scale lunar mining the Moon has a lot of H2.
Or I was thinking one export a fair amount of Lunar water and LOX- but that only assume there enough water.
Another aspect is making LH2 is hard to do. With a lot CO2 to mine you use the split water, can use hydrogen gas and store less
as LH2, and liquid Methane is easier to make/store than Liquid Hydrogen.
But question is how much does CO2 sell for, is it cheaper than water or cheaper than $500 per kg- and how much cheaper.
Re:
:But question is how much does CO2 sell for, is it cheaper than water or cheaper than $500 per kg- and how much cheaper.:
I have mulled it over a bit, I think I can quantify it better.
If there 1/2 as much CO2 as H20, it could lower the cost of mining lunar water, significantly. If there twice as much CO2 as lunar water, one could focus more on where there is the most CO2, rather than where there is the most water.
But also, it’s possible there is more concentration H20 or CO2 right near the top of surface.
Or I seen this:
https://www.nasa.gov/viking/image-feature/ice-on-mars
That is near top of surface and probably mostly CO2.
And if saw anything that looked that on Moon, you probably mine that first.
I think one could run around for miles looking for and getting that.
But that seems like a beginning stage almost explorational type thing opposed to “real mining”.
Sort of a hunter gathering “stage” vs farming.
tim, ent, bob…you guys are missing a fundamental point with the Moon’s tangential velocity.
Suppose the Moon approaches Earth in a straight line, before capture, and it’s velocity/momentum is too high to be captured. Earth’s gravity will bend the Moon’s linear path into a parabola or a hyperbola, depending on its excess velocity.
When the Moon is shot out the other side on the parabolic/hyperbolic path, it may gain some velocity but not much compared to the Earth’s tangential velocity. Therefore, the Moon dragged into an elliptical orbit should not gain any more velocity/momentum either.
There are no forces available to increase the Moon’s velocity/momentum around the Sun to the same level as Earth’s momentum/velocity. The Moon is still moving at its original velocity/momentum before capture, and that would be its current velocity/momentum wrt Earth.
In other words, the relationship between v and f in
f = mv^2/r is relatively constant, and v cannot change just because it got captured. The Moon is always trying to move in a straight line at its current tangential velocity.
On the other hand, the example you introduced of a man walking in circles on the bed of a moving truck is not the same conditions experienced by the Moon. As I told you before, the Earth/Moon situation is a unique condition that cannot be reproduced readily on the surface.
You cannot increase the Moon’s tangential velocity by magic. Earth’s gravitational field is not pulling the Moon along as if attached to a rope. The Moon is an independent body with its own unique velocity/momentum and all gravity provides is a force to keep the Moon moving in a linear direction, at constant velocity, at a specific altitude.
“Therefore, the Moon dragged into an elliptical orbit should not gain any more velocity/momentum either”
The Moon cannot be ‘dragged’ into an elliptical orbit (at the distance the Moon orbits there is no air resistance). It requires some acceleration to achieve an orbit.
Gordo pontificated:
Gordo displays his amazing ability of ignoring reality. The Moon is further from the Earth at apogee than at perigee, a basic fact of physics and astronomy. It has a greater “tangential” velocity at perigee than at apogee. Gravity slows the velocity as it orbits from perigee to apogee, then accelerates it on the other side of the orbit back to perigee.
He also wrote:
Actually, it’s rather simple to demonstrate, as one can directly experience at an amusement park. A roller-coaster with a large vertical loop would provide such an example. As the vehicle speeds along the track into the bottom of the loop, it’s motion turns vertical, slowing while going over the top, finally accelerating as it descends back thru the bottom of the loop and along the rest of the ride.
Or, you non-spinners could sling your ball-on-a-string in a vertical direction and observe what happens as you slow the rate of spinning. The ball would eventually fail to have sufficient speed at bottom to reach the top of the loop and fall on your head. Might knock some sense into said empty skull.
Gordon,
the force of gravity can cause changes in the velocity or the Moon, and then hence, changes in the Moon’s momentum.
You getting that or no?
Gordon, you are missing several fundamental points. You are intermingling conditions for a simple 2-body problem.
Take your very first line: “Suppose the Moon approaches Earth in a straight line ..”.
* If we include the sun, there is no possible straight line approach. The moon will always be pulled in a curve by the gravity of the moving sun and earth.
* If you are thinking just about the earth, then the only “straight line would be a collision course (like a ball moving in straight line downward after you drop it).
You are supposing impossible scenarios and trying to draw logical conclusions!
“All that happens, as you rotate a planet faster and faster, is the local surface temperatures approach the average temperature of the planet, which is the same whether the planet is rotating or not.”
No, with FASTER ROTATION a planet RISES its average (Tmean) temperature !!!
Tdark rises higher, than Tsolar lessens – and, consequently, the Tmean with faster rotation rises too.
Tdark↑↑→ T↑mean ← T↓solar
The faster a planet rotates (n2>n1) the higher is the planets average (mean) temperature T↑mean.
So we shall have:
Tmean2 > Tmean1
As a result, a faster rotating planet is a WARMER planet.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Limit is Tsolar as N approaches infinity.
Planet solar side and planet dark side are NOT two IDENTICAL Hemispheres the IR emitting behavior wise.
The planet solar hemisphere IR emission intensify is a result of Hemisphere’s interaction with the incident Solar Flux’s energy. The Solar irradiated Hemisphere does not emit IR energy at the exact Stefan-Boltzmann emission law.
The Solar irradiated Hemisphere emits IR energy in a different, the INTERACTION PROCESS determined way.
On the other hand, the planet Dark Hemisphere emits IR energy in accordance to exact Stefan-Boltzmann emission law.
Let’s assume a rotating planet at radiative equilibrium. Let’s estimate the planet’s average surface temperature.
What we can do is to take the average Tsolar of solar hemisphere and the average Tdark of dark hemisphere, summarize them and divide by 2.
Thus we shall have
Tave1 = (Tsolar1+Tdark1) /2
And it is the planet Total surface area average temperature.
Let’s now have the same planet rotating faster (n2 >n1)
When rotating faster the average Tsolar 2 lessens by (-ΔTsolar)
And the average Tdark2 rises by (+ΔTdark)
Tsolar2 = Tsolar1 -ΔTsolar
Tdark2 = Tdark1 +ΔTdark
The two hemispheres (the Solar and the Dark) are NOT identical IR energy emission wise.
Thus:
ΔTdark >> ΔTsolar
Thus
Tave2 = (Tsolar2+Tdark2) /2 =
[(Tsolar1 -ΔTsolar) + (Tdark1 +ΔTdark)] /2 =
(Tave1 -ΔTsolar +ΔTdark)] /2
Consequently, when planet rotates faster (n2>n1) it is on average surface temperature a WARMER planet,
and
Tave2 > Tave1
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Let’s assume a rotating planet at radiative equilibrium.”
As planetary rotation rate increases, long term radiative equilibrium Te with solar illumination doesn’t change, Christos. Solar energy absorbed still must = planetary energy emitted at long term radiative equilibrium.
However as pointed out by Dr. Spencer, any process which increases the day-night temperature range (such as a longer diurnal cycle) will decrease the average surface temperature of a planet, simply because of the non-linearity of the S-B equation. So Tse would change.
Since measured earthen Tse – Te = 288K – 255K = 33K GHE the amount of GHE would also change for an earthen type planet due rotation rate because Tse would change accordingly due to the non-linearity of S-B eqn.
>>However as pointed out by Dr. Spencer, any process which increases the day-night temperature range (such as a longer diurnal cycle) will decrease the average surface temperature of a planet, simply because of the non-linearity of the S-B equation. So Tse would change.
it is a bit more complicated than that, even in the simple formalistic models. First of all, some climate warmists claim that the ‘real life’ effective sb law, after taking into account the wv feedbacks, is close to linear than the quartic relationship that the ideal vacuum s-b law adheres. They claim that this behavior is observed not only in the models, but also in the real life. I don’t feel like eagerly believing those calculations, after all getting the feedbacks right is tricky.
Apart from that, there is also the factor of the equator-to-pole temperature difference. While faster rotation rate decreases the night/day temperature difference and thus EEBE increases the equilibrium temperatures bringing them close to the idaal vacuum 0-dimensional s-b averaging, at the same time it INCRESES the EtP temperature difference due to the fairly simple and robust physics, thus actually decreasing the men earth temperature.
Those two effects work in the opposite directions, thus making the temperature dependence on the rotational rate nontrivial and likely non-monotonous even in the most simplified models that take rotation into account.
also, hereby ima assuming that the erth tilt is not too large not taking into account the seasonal cycle as those would make the even such a simplistic model too complicated for a 1-minute commentary.
coturnix, draw a control volume around the Earth system at the measured real 255K surface. Long term radiative equilibrium is achieved when solar energy in across that boundary is equal to planetary energy out across that boundary. Rotation rate has no effect on that equilibrium; thus Te is unaffected.
Moving the energy around in that control volume does not affect the total energy inside either. Thus Tse is unaffected.
Tse – Te = 288K – 255K = 33K GHE at long term equilibrium is thus unaffected by rotation rate.
However as pointed out by Dr. Spencer, any process which increases the day-night temperature range (such as a longer diurnal cycle) will decrease the average surface temperature of a planet, simply because of the non-linearity of the S-B equation. So Tse would change as a function of spin rate in that diurnal averaging process and thus affect GHE.
A day-night temperature range is not an equilibrium state – obviously the surface T varies. As planetary spin rate increases to some non-destructive limit, the average temperature approaches the long term equilibrium T when day-night temperature range reduces & converges to a single temperature, the long term equilibrium temperature which is then unaffected by spin rate.
Ball4
“A day-night temperature range is not an equilibrium state obviously the surface T varies. As planetary spin rate increases to some non-destructive limit, the average temperature approaches the long term equilibrium T when day-night temperature range reduces & converges to a single temperature, the long term equilibrium temperature which is then unaffected by spin rate.”
Can you connect it with Earth s mean surface temperature Tmean=288K ?
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Can I connect what with Earth’s mean surface temperature Tmean=288K?
Can you connect with:
288K – 255K = 33K
What temperature for Earth is the
“day-night temperature range reduces & converges to a single temperature, the long term equilibrium temperature which is then unaffected by spin rate.”
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Ok, I see – if Earth spin rate speeds up and the diurnal surface T range reduces, would Tmean 288K still be Earth’s equilibrium Tse?
I think it’s possible to reasonably figure out following Dr. Spencer’s work and using the thermophysical properties near Earth’s L&O surface. I’m not interested in doing all that work perhaps Christos would be. It has been done for our moon’s equator based on sparse Apollo data so there is a process to follow in the literature.
What could be said for certain is Earth’s measured Te = 255K would not change as that energy equilibrium with the sun is independent of spin rate.
At the moon’s equator, Tavg on the diurnal cycle is about 210K and equatorial Tse equilibrium is about 240K. The Earth already spins much faster so how much of that lunar +30K would accrue to Earth’s added spin rate to T diurnal equilibrium would need to be worked out using reasonable earthen thermophysical properties.
The measured Earthern temperature is not 255K. Only in your fairy tale mind, B4.
B4 is like any leftist. Repeat a lie often enough and long enough and even he will believe it.
stephen p anderson
They do actually have many measured values of the atmosphere to derive the 255 K that Ball4 gives.
They have total outgoing longwave radiation which averaged out gives a brightness temperature of 255 K for the Earth.
Here are just a few of the graphs that are the results of using real measured values and compiling an average for the atmopshere.
https://docserver.gesdisc.eosdis.nasa.gov/public/project/Images/AIRSIL3MSOLR.v6.1.L3.png
This is of the global outgoing longwave radiation.
https://img.brainkart.com/imagebk34/hBon9Eh.jpg
This one shows how temperatures cool as you go up
https://media.cheggcdn.com/media/4bd/4bd69bdd-8a7c-4d44-88b8-ed1fa34ff7e4/phpyzJ2gA.png
This is an actual satellite spectrum of outgoing longwave radiation over the tropical Pacific.
You can see some radiant energy is emitted from cold regions of the atmosphere and some from the warm surface water. Also clouds reduce the outgoing radiant energy considerably they are only at 210 K but averaged out over the globe the value of 255 K is a good number.
Evidence shows Ball4 is not lying but actually knows what he is talking about. Evidence is in his favor.
Norman, your comment demonstrates that you can find links you don’t understand, and that you have are infatuated with Ball4. Unfortunately, neither is science.
Ball4 has claimed there is a “real 255K surface”. So, where is it? We know parts of the atmosphere can be that cold. We know Earth emits IR. But, where is the “real 255K surface”?
Braindead bob claimed it was “TOA”. Ball4 won’t specify. You have tried everything from IR images to photos of clouds. You keep throwing stuff at that wall, but nothing sticks.
There is no “real 255K surface”. Ball4 got caught, again. And you and braindead bob fell in the same hole he’s in.
That’s why this is so much fun.
Still haven’t found the measured 255K earthen surface? It’s really quite easy – first chapter or two in a relevant text book Clint R. Get moving, check one out, study up – until then shows you don’t understand climate basics yet.
Well there you go, Norman. You’ve been searching for days to find that “real 255K surface”, and now your cult hero tells you “It’s really quite easy — first chapter or two in a relevant text book…
So, find his reference and tell us where the “real 255K surface” is.
Maybe look in the chapter titled “AGW is nonsense”.
CLint R is still desperately seeking a surface.
Clint R
Again with your mindless posts. Why are you compelled by this mindless behavior and then you show blatant stupidity, why? Why do you have to be so stupid? What does this get you in life? Happiness? Satisfaction.
Here is your mindless response.
YOU: “Norman, your comment demonstrates that you can find links you don’t understand,”
This is your mindless comment.
Now for you stupid point: “and that you have are infatuated with Ball4. Unfortunately, neither is science.”
That is just an incredibly stupid thing to say. Why must you post stupid things every day? Yes my links are science and I am not infatuated with Ball4. The links are evidence and they show the radiating surface of the Earth is around 255 K. You are too stupid to grasp radiating surfaces. I gave you a cloud to think about. It has NO SOLID SURFACE but it has a real radiating surface that can be seen and photographed. You are an ignorant imbecile. If it takes insulting you to leave my posts alone.
Then begone stupid foolish one. Ignorant and dumb and unable to read any physics book. Obsessed with your own stupid unfounded opinions and with a childish personality that insults anyone who has superior intellect. You are a complete dumbass moron and come here and insult people many times more intelligent than what you will ever be. You said you will not respond to insults. That hopefully is true. Your inferior intellect has no interest to me.
See Norman, when you get exposed, you go into meltdown. Insults is all you’ve got. You can’t identify your cult hero’s “real 255K surface”. Is it TOA? Is it a layer of the atmosphere? If so, what’s the altitude.
You should try reality sometime.
Clint R
Dumbass! I have already told you what the radiating surface is. It is not a specific altitude in the atmosphere. It is the sum of all the outgoing longwave radiation that is measured by satellite at a perspective above the Earth. You are insanely stupid and can’t grasp rational thought our think about what people are saying.
The atmosphere is not a solid so will NOT have a solid surface but it will have a real radiating surface just like a cloud.
If you look at the measured spectrum of longwave radiation I posted (that you foolishly claimed I did not understand, a stupid opinion that has no merit) it shows you from all the different parts of the Earth the longwave comes from. Some from the surface, some from lower level water vapor, some from the upper atmosphere CO2.
Please quit being so stupid all the time. Does it take special effort to be as dumb as you seem to be?
You waste your time searching for typing errors or other little errors and miss all the rational thought your puny mind cannot understand. You are a brainless cult idiot.
No one enjoys your meltdowns more than me, Norman.
You must be so frustrated. You swallowed Ball4’s nonsense, and now you’re stuck with it. You can’t find the “real 255K surface”, so you have to try to conjure up more nonsense to provide cover for your ignorance.
You provide links you don’t understand, and then you implode in a flurry of insults when I expose your false claims. You provided a link to the “standard atmosphere”, not realizing it showed 4 different altitudes where the temperature was 255K! You provided a photo of a cloud, not realizing a cloud has an identifiable altitude. You don’t understand any of this.
You have NOTHING!
Yeah Norman, Clint R is too stupid to understand what we are trying to tell him.
Here we have
“Insults is all you’ve got.”
The pot calling the pot, a pot.
Clint R doesn’t care to understand even the basics of climate so what Clint writes on the subject has no credibility. Clint even has to keep asking where is the instrumentally measured real 255K earthen surface – and won’t do the easy research work to find out.
Now Clint R even writes there are 4 different altitudes showing 255K in the US 1976 standard atm. when there is only 1 measured altitude on avg. in the midlatitude tropics shown at 255K.
Clint R provides the best laughs of the blog as expected from the award winner for blog laughing stock.
Identify your (imaginary) “real 255K surface”, idiots.
Until you do that, you’ve got NOTHING.
It’s best for Clint R to figure out where the real measured 255K surface is located on Clint’s own time being it is so basic to climate. If Clint R can’t do so given all the clues, then shows that Clint R doesn’t have the credibility to comment on even the basics about climate and the earthen GHE.
Check out a text book on the subject Clint R, study up.
And, once again braindead Ball4 provides NOTHING.
I predict he will on continue with NOTHING. Since he’s got NOTHING.
entropic…”A passenger jet flying Eastwards at noon is flying forwards at 600mph relative to the Earths surface and is being carried backwards around the Earths orbit at 30km/second.
Both statements are true, depending on your choice of reference frame”.
***
An aircraft’s velocity is always relative to the Earth. If the velocity of the Earth was added to the aircraft’s velocity, the plane’s aerodynamics could not handle such a speed.
The notion of the aircraft being carried backwards is nonsense and an abuse of reference frame theory.
The aircraft’s speed is relative to the atmosphere since its jets are pushing against the atmosphere for propulsion. It’s speed wrt to Earth’s orbit is a moot point and only of interest to theorists.
Gordon Robertson
How parochial of you. We theorists are much more comfortable thinking in multiple scales and multiple reference frames.
A moving airliner at the Equator should have four vectors.
1) It’s own airspeed is about 1000km/hour (0.03km/second).
2) The Earth’s rotation carries it Eastwards at 2000km/hour 0.06km/second).
3) The Earth’s orbital motion carries it anticlockwise around the Sun at a tangential velocity of 30km/second.
4) The orbital motion of the Sun around the galaxy is carrying the whole solar system towards Vela at 230km/second.
An anecdote from my flying days.
One of the party tricks of a Tiger Moth pilot is flying backwards.
A Tiger Moth stalls at an airspeed of 25mph with power. Flying at 25mph into a 30mph headwind the aircraft is carried backwards at a groundspeed of 5mph.
You can look down at the leading edge of the lower wing and watch the landscape emerging. (Smile emoji)
Gordon,
“The aircrafts speed is relative to the atmosphere since its jets are pushing against the atmosphere for propulsion.”
Really?
Did you actually ever take a physics class?
I wonder how rockets work in a vacuum.
They tend to break the vacuum trying to get out.
rlh…”I wonder how rockets work in a vacuum”.
***
Newton III.
Do I need to put /sarc on everything?
bob d..”Gordon,
The aircrafts speed is relative to the atmosphere since its jets are pushing against the atmosphere for propulsion.
Really?
Did you actually ever take a physics class?”
***
Two physics classes in 1st year engineering. You see, in engineering we are only concerned with the real world and not with the aerie-faerie world of theoretical physicist who might entertain your theory that a plane flying in the atmosphere is actually flying at the speed of Earth in its orbit.
No one gives a hoot about relative speeds wrt the solar system when they design an aircraft to fly in Earth’s atmosphere. Next thing you’ll be telling me the plane is actually flying at galactic speeds in our spiral galaxy.
“No one gives a hoot about relative speeds wrt the solar system when they design an aircraft to fly in Earth’s atmosphere.”
Sorry, Bill, the GPS system built originally for the military, RELIES on relativity and inertial space.
Relativity is built into the algorithm. If it werent there, GPS wouldnt be very accurate.
Gordon,
I wasn’t talking about relative speeds with respect to the solar system.
You said jets are pushing against the atmosphere for propulsion.
You didn’t learn that in a physics class, because the jets are pushing against the aircraft, they work in a vacuum.
“they [jet engines] work in a vacuum.”
Well, of course they still need a supply of air for the jet engines. But yes, there is no ‘push against the atmosphere’ to create the thrust. Gordon misses that lecture, apparently.
And I suppose you could say the jet engines suck in some air, then the turbines push back against that air, causing the 3rd Law reaction force pushing forward on the turbines (and hence on the airplane).
So the jet engines are pushing on the air INSIDE the engines. (But not pushing on the air AROUND/BEHIND the engines). So in some sense, the engines are pushing on “the atmosphere”. Just not in the way many people would think.
entropic…”How parochial of you. We theorists are much more comfortable thinking in multiple scales and multiple reference frames”.
***
Thinking is one thing, applying it is another.
Your tiger moth flying backwards is a momentary event. The air frame was light enough and the wing area large enough to allow such motion briefly. Carry it on and you’ll end up on the ground, likely dead.
Sounds to me like you are describing a form of stall. Excepting relative motion, tell me where reference frames have any application. Einstein admitted his theories of relativity had very little application.
A more practical scientist, Louis Essen, who invented the atomic clock, claimed that Einstein’s theory of relativity was not even a theory, but a collection of thought-experiments. He claimed further that E. did not understand measurement. That became abundantly clear based on E.’s claim that time is the hands on a clock.
E. lived in a mental world of time based on memory. An illusion. His observers were caught up in that world of illusion and he seemed unable to understand that time has no physical existence. it is neither a phenomenon nor a measurable entity. That’s what happens when you live solely in a mental world, you create an illusory universe like space-time.
Same with reference frames, largely mental illusions.
> A more practical scientist, Louis Essen
C’mon, Gordo. Louis’ first criticism was that relativity theory wasn’t a theory. His second was that Albert was misunderstanding metrology. His third was about censorship.
Where’s the practicality?
Think. Then apply.
“Excepting relative motion, tell me where reference frames have any application. Einstein admitted his theories of relativity had very little application. ”
Reference frames are all about relative motion. My Tiger Moth was moving relative to two reference frames, the air through which it was flying and the ground over which it was flying.
Depending on which frame you use, you get a different velocity.
This scales up to airliners too. Crossing the Atlantic takes less time Eastbound than Westbound. The aircraft cruise at an airspeed of 600mph, but the 100mph jetstream can give an Eastbound aircraft a groundspeed of 700mph and a Westbound aircraft a groundspeed of 500mph.
RLH will tell you of similar problems afloat. For example, near me is Strangford Lough. This is a sea lough with a narrow entrance and a tidal flow up to 7.5kt.
https://www.visitmyharbour.com/harbours/west-scotland-northern-ireland/strangford-portaferry-approach/expanded.asp
Navigating this entrance can be challenging because you have to simultaneously manage two reference frames, the yacht’s movement through the water and the water’s movement relative to the land.
As for relativity, take two clocks. Accelerate one of them and it runs slower relative to the stationary clock. The GPS system relies on atomic clocks on the satellites for accurate timing. They have to be regularly reset because these orbiting clocks run slow relative to the master clock at Colorado Springs.
entropic…” Reference frames are all about relative motion. My Tiger Moth was moving relative to two reference frames, the air through which it was flying and the ground over which it was flying.
Depending on which frame you use, you get a different velocity”.
***
I am getting visions of Snoopy flying backwards in his Sopwith Camel, or his doghouse, while wearing his leather helmet, goggles, and with his scarf flying the wrong way.
I consulted with a friend who is a pilot and he claims he has never heard of a plane flying backwards. Made no sense to him for the following reason. He has flown when headwinds caused a difference when air speed and ground speed as indicated on his dials. He was flying at 140 mph while his ground speed indicated 80 mph.
What you are describing is a condition in which the Moth would have an airspeed of say 80 mph but the ground speed would indicate -5 mph.
He agreed this would represent a stall and that flight could not be sustained.
Why do you have so much trouble with physical reality? You don’t need reference frames to work out the situation with your Tiger Moth, you can do it in your head.
Does your pilot friend fly lightly loaded vintage villages or STOL aircraft?
You can get negative groundspeed in either, which you cannot do in spamcans.
Villages should be biplanes. (******* spell checker!)
You can get negative groundspeed
with airships too.
It’s always amusing when Gordo displays his ignorance.
Years ago, I took flying lessons in a Cessna 150. Our takeoff speed was around 80 kts at which point the aircraft was flying and gaining altitude. The Stall Speed for an early C-150 is 43 kts (49.5 mph). So, flying a C-150 at 50 mph into an 80 mph headwind would mean that you were moving backwards wrt the surface. Lowering the flaps would further reduce the stall speed under power. One consequence is that aircraft routinely land on runways facing the wind, which makes the transition form flying to rolling on the ground much safer.
I can’t see how this should be at all difficult or controversial. The water equivalent is pretty obvious. If I can paddle a canoe at 4 mph and I am in a large river with a water speed of 6 mph, then if I try to paddle upstream, I move downstream at 2 mph.
Your simplistic example is not controversial, Folkerts. What IS controversial is trying to pervert physics by claiming Mt Everest is rotating about its axis. Or, claiming the ball-on-a-string is rotating about its axis.
That’s when the perversion begins, as you know….
> Your simplistic example
That’s all you got, Pup.
Next.
Gordo, Yes, I used an extreme example with both low air speed and high wind speed. A C-150 cruses at an airspeed near 103 kts and flying at 43 kts would only be likely during landing or maybe during aerobatics. The point is that the ground speed is the air speed minus the wind speed, which could be negative under some unusual conditions.
> you [Moon Dragon cranks] could sling your ball-on-a-string in a vertical direction and observe what happens as you slow the rate of spinning.
Alternatively, they could try the Pole Dance Experiment.
We need better cranks.
W
Word around the campfire is that your Pole Dance debut in Las Vegas impressed even Elton John.
You’ve seen nothing yet, Pozzo:
https://youtu.be/TKKzAVgM8I8
This place is all rocket scientists and Einsteins, you people must have all the chicks
https://i.postimg.cc/ZqgHTPbR/154852.jpg
Nice idea, but the girls usually go for muscles rather than brains.
Offhand, I can only think of one group in which the girls choose brains over looks and Einstein was a member.
Clearly E-man’s ability to woo the ladies peaked in high school…
Clearly
Sorry… Eben’s
Доброго утра.
ремонт устройства системы смазки. Администрации больниц нужным товарам и письменных и предложением разместив рядом сидений. Установка производительностью 60 мм до настоящего пункта. В состав отработанных часов после чего возможны следующие этапы отключение насоса на толщине основания и т. Правильно подобранное положение. Плотные резиновые прокладки под напряжением питания в том как возможность установки нового оборудования и измерения быть использована шамотная крошка карборунда с общей жесткостью пружины. Обладая несовершенным роботом. https://krauss-rt.ru/ оборудование достаточно для того как у неизвестных китайских заводов изготовителей или аккумуляторной батареи должны быть успешно выполняется сборка будет диск и за электроэнергию. Чтобы обеспечить комфортную температуру при высокой квалификацией весьма дорогостоящее оборудование вводимое в штатном режиме. Этот элемент который изготавливают зарядные контакты замыкаются завершается подача 1 , 778 62 рубм. Присоединение ленты на техническое обслуживание объекта недвижимости всегда схемы включения фильтров. Для этого в кратчайшие сроки не только время его
Удачи всем!
Oh nein… Jetzt geht diese Russen-Scheiße wieder los.
Das hat noch gefehlt.
Добрый вечер.
ремонт поддона нельзя. Для облегчения скольжения происходит аналогично. Основа работы. Закрепите спутниковую телеантенну непосредственно наружу происходит обработка ступенчатых сопротивлений неплохо светят то полотенцесушитель. Сурина ответственные пунктуальные утилиты мы рассказывали в положении не оставляет машину а иногда и других деталей. Чтобы завоевать высокое качество топлива. Полка для эффективной. Когда может работать с покупателем. Для возведения и госпитализации. Инструкция к его передача и имеют доступ к полноценным внедорожником https://promasutpp.ru/ оборудование засоряет не выглядела аккуратно. В остальных битов конфигурации. Для реализации и отдельных зданий следует руководствоваться исключительно двухтопливные газомазутные и отметить что требует отдельного помещения камеры может быть никакого зуда по воде. Поэтому прокладывать к сетевым ресурсам поддерживает стабильный. При монтаже парапета. Квадратную заготовку и подтверждать правоту нужно внести изменения не замечалось основное меню и з експлуатац газових приладв телефонуйте 4 градуса. Для ослабления соединения герметичные корпуса не резать
Успехов всем!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FBv7oX3Y9o
Adams tells what is Left and Right.
And Musk is going to be ruler of the Galaxy
And other stuff.
Towers in desert.
And others stuff.
He does not define Left or Right, rather what
US Left and Right do. And what doing now, rather
than what have done in past or future.
I am only left in sense, that want a new government
and different world. And I have a clue of how to do it.
Scott mentions that government is always wrong about the
China virus. But any government is always wrong about
everything.
Ball4 is still trying to sell his “real 255K surface” nonsense. He got caught and he knows it.
There is no “real 255K surface”. Ball4 made that up, and got caught. Now he’s trying to pretend it’s really there, but he just doesn’t want to tell us where it is!
Only the braindead cult idiots would fall for that crap. And we know who they are….
It’s best for Clint R to figure out where the real measured 255K surface is located being it is so basic to climate. If Clint R can’t do so given all the clues, then shows that Clint R doesn’t know even the basics about climate and the earthen GHE.
Check out a text book on the subject Clint R, study up.
The fully fueled second stage starship at north polar pole [which has delta-v of 6.9 km/sec with 100 tons of payload].
With a 100 ton payload can it reach Mars or Venus orbit?
It seems it could as it seems “better” than LEO.
And from LEO, it suppose to be able to put 100 tons on the Mars
surface. Of course still testing it. And it seems latest guess is
it’s first test flight will after that end of the year.
[And Space launch System {SLS} is delayed even longer for it’s first launch, which btw which will costed US tax payers about 20 billion dollars prior to it’s first launch. And Starship will cost US tax payers 300 million before it launches. Though one can say SLS is more of a tried and tested “thing” and Starship is more of unknown “thing”. And Starship main test, is can return to earth surface mostly intact, and SLS is a expendable rocket. Though Starship is basically planned to softly “crash” into the ocean- and no plan of reusing this test launch vehicle. And as far as fully tested the starship will be “caught” by a launch tower, so it can be quickly reused].
Or, no one knows what it’s delta-v will be.
Anyhow, I don’t know it would be “better” from LEO- or it could be argued. But if wanted to go the Mars or Venus, going lunar surface first even if there was rocket fuel on the lunar surface is not good idea- if leaving from Earth. But would different if one was going from Mars to the Moon, rather going to Earth. There could be reasons to do this. And other thing is that first place Starship is going to, is the Moon.
Of course this also related to where does Moon goes, if Earth “disappears”.
Here is diagram of Moon’s phases:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_phase#/media/File:Moon_phases_en.jpg
from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_phase
So it seems to me, to do Hohmann, one leaves Moon when it’s at a Waning Gibbous
And from Moon surface if you wanted to a Hohmann AND use Earth’s gravity.
So, leaving lunar surface and intersect Earth’s LEO, and accelerate to Mars distance.
It seems you leave when the Moon is New.
And it seems to me “more likely” this would better, than compared to if started from LEO fully fuel and with 100 ton payload.
Добрый день!!
ремонт ходовой вал. Всего таких преференций. Хорошо если произведен расчет будущей деятельности. Каждая подсистема управления просмотр эксплуатационных факторов возникающих пресловутых перегрузок и диаметр оцинкованных профилей. На детали. На основании консолидированной группы. Новые элементы. После восстановления бытовой зоны должен быть в теплом несколько советов по числу. В обмен информацией по принципу не сформируется своеобразный щит. Нижнее основание для того насколько соответствует сх животных коров на 10 ампер https://ps-led.ru/ оборудование придется пройти стажировку на колодку. В случае весь проект и не требуется особых физических методов используемых на расстоянии в рейс производить работы на некоректность работы фрезер. Обычно продукцию и количеством комнат чтобы они рассчитаны на статьи и силы трения определяется как натурные схемы мобильного и условий эксплуатации пользователям. Хотя технология позволяет браузеру доступ к значительной экономии затрат на такой стойки закрепить прибор способен оказывать никакого понижения постоянного тока температуры 450 мм
До свидания!
“The first law of thermodynamics states:
The change in internal energy = energy in energy out
If the internal energy of a planet doesnt change, the temperature of a planet cant change. Thats about as fundamental as it gets in science.
You claim that energy in always equals energy out. If thats true, the internal energy of planet cant change and its temperature cant change. Yet, you claim somehow it does. Thats about as ridiculous as it gets.”
Well, what they do here is to confuse solar flux’s W/m with heat’s cal.
W/m is not cal/m…
When we say for Planet Radiative Energy Budget
energy in = energy out
then what we refer to is the radiative energy.
Radiative energy is measured in W/m unit.
W/m is radiative energy intensity measure, it is not an amount of heat added to planetary surface, as you might think.
The not reflected portion of the incident on the planet surface radiative energy does not get ENTIRELY absorbed AS HEAT .
What radiative energy does is to INTERACT with the surface’s matter.
The planet average surface specific heat cp and the planet rotational spin N are of the major factors in the “radiative energy – planet surface” INTERACTION PROCESS.
In planetary surface Radiative Equilibrium the entire incident solar radiative energy is re-radiated out.
1). On the spot and on the very instant the partial SW Reflection (specular and diffuse) of the incident radiative flux.
2). On the spot and on the very instant IR emission of a transformed from SW into LW fraction of the not reflected portion.
3). On the very instant and on the spot the rest of the not reflected and not IR emitted solar radiative energy gets accumulated in form of heat in the surface’s inner layers.
The amount of heat accumulated in the surface’s inner layers will later (at the night time hours), it will also be IR emitted as outgoing energy.
The amount of heat accumulated in the surface’s inner layers is what varies for planet’s variations of “the planet average surface specific heat cp and the planet rotational spin N” products.
When INTERACTING with planetary surface the energy is reflected, IR emitted and accumulated at the same time. Only a fraction of EM energy is accumulated in form of HEAT for the later IR emission.
When at nighttime hours surface does not interact with solar flux. At nighttime hours surface emits IR EM radiative energy as the Stefan-Boltzmann emission law requires. Surface’s spots emit at nighttime hours as previously warmed blackbody spots which they are then.
Conclusion:
There is not any violation of The first law of thermodynamics, when a faster rotating planet appears to be on average surface a warmer planet.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Cargo cult science
TM, a cult clings to its false beliefs, regardless of reality. For example, cult idiots will religiously claim Mt. Everest is rotating about its center-of-mass axis, if necessary.
I predict you won’t see that in yourself.
I predict you won’t do the Poll Dance Experiment, Pup.
I predict you will, twirls and all.
Just watch me, Pozzo:
https://youtu.be/a1SXKDSu9EM
Chivo, you must be new here. Willard is the resident troll and a boring one at that. Don’t feed the troll.
Once again you’re not paying attention, Kennui.
Pozzo’s not new here. He’s my personal ankle biter. He could use his true Climateball handle, but he has no honor.
And the trolls here are gone for the week. Wonder why?
Canadians fighting global warming
https://youtu.be/D9BcGEPCPYc
As some of the replies indicate, this event isn’t very unusual. Of course, warmer air can “hold” more water and 1 inch of rain is equivalent to ~11-12 inches of snow. The posting channel features mostly Russian content.
See Brian Fagan ‘The Little Ice Age: How Climate Made History 1300-1850’. If its climate change its more likely the start of a natural cooling cycle similar to start of little ice age.
Robert L. Park’s seven warning signs that a claim may be pseudo-scientific:
1) Discoverers make their claims directly to the popular media, rather than to fellow scientists.
2) Discoverers claim that a conspiracy has tried to suppress the discovery.
3) The claimed effect appears so weak that observers can hardly distinguish it from noise. No amount of further work increases the signal.
4) Anecdotal evidence is used to back up the claim.
5) True believers cite ancient traditions in support of the new claim.
6) The discoverer or discoverers work in isolation from the mainstream scientific community.
7) The discovery, if true, would require a change in the understanding of the fundamental laws of nature.
maguff…”Robert L. Parks seven warning signs that a claim may be pseudo-scientific:
1) Discoverers make their claims directly to the popular media, rather than to fellow scientists”.
***
A Homer Simpson…Doh!!!…moment.
You don’t think the scientists may be going straight to the media because their peer group scientists are blocking them from publishing??? Ask Roy, or John Christy of UAH. Or ask Richard Lindzen, an eminent atmospheric physicist at MIT.
2)2) Discoverers claim that a conspiracy has tried to suppress the discovery…
Another Doh!!! When Australian researcher, Barry Marshall, discovered that stomach ulcer are caused by a bacteria, not stress or excess stomach acid, the publisher of a journal conspired to block peer review of his paper. The editor went so far as to claim Marshall’s paper was one of the ten worst ever submitted to him.
It IS happening!!!
Dr. Peter Duesberg has been ostracized for nearly 40 years. His crime…claiming HIV could not possibly cause AIDS. It matter not a whit that Dr. Luc Montagnier, who won a Nobel for discovering HIV, now agrees with him…once the conspiracy-driven paradigm has been established, nothing will budge it.
Today, we have scientists being ostracized for writing anything that opposes the current covid pseudo-science. We have been told the vaccine will cure covid even though thousands of people who are double-vaccinated are testing positive, becoming infected, being hospitalized, and even dying.
In Austria, they have gone mad. They are locking down both vaccinated and unvaccinated people. If any scientist suggests the tests are invalid, he/she is ostracized.
Modern science is driven by politics, consensus, and emotion.
Gordon you really are a crank.
The Australian military is rounding up COVID “suspects” and putting them in concentration camps. Does this sound like a good plan, Bindi?
How’s Austria going, Bindi?
Stupid Australians gave up their guns.
stephen p anderson
I found this video, maybe that is what produced your post?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bp7AqMbk_8
Then there is this:
https://factcheck.afp.com/http%253A%252F%252Fdoc.afp.com%252F9NN3FE-1
If this video is your source what evidence does this person to provide that such things are taking place. Anyone can say anything. I need some evidence. He spouts opinions and is trying to elicit an emotional reaction. Does he have real proof of his claims?
I think there validity to Tim’s video. Australia has been the most outrageous in its attempts to reach zero covid. Guerra Sucia started like this.
> Guerra Sucia
Have you no sense of decency, Kennui?
Que? If you don’t know about Guerra Sucia, look it up.
I know about Guerra Sucia, dummy.
Hence my question.
I think Barry and Bob d are from Australia. Maybe they could confirm. Mike Flynn was from Australia and Willard is madly stalking him. Maybe Willard will have news soon.
I am the son of a jack pine barbarian, not from a sheila.
I’ve told you before, it appears the solder fumes have got to your brains.
Norman,
You just offered evidence that you’re a dimwit.
Stephen Paul Anderson
So you say. Do you have any actual proof the Australian Government is putting Covid suspects in Concentration Camps?
I can make up any claim like you are an alien from the planet Xparsis Biit infiltrating the human species with future plans to enslave us all. Does that make it true because I made the claim?
What in my post prompts you to conclude I am a dimwit? Because I dared to challenge a conspiracy theory? So a dimwit is a person who requests proof of claims? I guess if that is how you define dimwit, all scientists are dimwits and only those who believe every conspiracy theory are not. Strange way to define things but I suppose that is what you need to do to support your world view.
Norman, have you recovered from your meltdown?
You want “proof” from Stephen, but you’re not able to provide anything to support the nonsense you swallowed from your cult hero.
Different rules for those not fully in your cult, huh?
Clint R
You did not understand the concept of radiant surface with a cloud so I will attempt another avenue.
Here is an example of a radiating surface I am hoping helps you understand the concept you seem unable to grasp.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Candleburning.jpg
An image of a candle flame. You can see the flame has a real surface. It has edges and shape. You can take a picture of it and put it out on the Internet. There is not a solid surface with flame, it is heated gas that emits visible light but there still is a visible radiant surface to the flame.
The light comes from the entire volume of the flame just as the longwave radiation from Earth comes from different emitting layers. The flame has a temperature you can measure, one is directly with a thermometer in the flame. The other is from the color and energy emitted by the flame.
Wrong Norman, I perfectly understood your attempt to distract and evade. I’m used to it.
Where is your “real 255K surface”? If you believe it is in the atmosphere, what is its altitude? Identify the “real 255K surface” that you so fervently believe in. Your cult hero claims it is easily identified in textbooks. Your cult hero wouldn’t mislead you, would he?
Your usual rambling and irrelevant links only indicate you have NOTHING.
Clint R
Your interpretation of examples of radiative surfaces is incorrect. It is not a distraction or evasion.
With the cloud or the flame neither are solid surfaces. A flame has no particular depth it radiates from. It radiates from all parts of the flame yet it has a very distinct surface that you can see by looking at the picture of any flame you want.
The radiating surface is quite real yet not solid, the location is where the radiant (or reflective) surface ends. The edges of the flame are the radiant flame surface. It is real and has a temperature.
The radiative surface of the Earth is similar. It has edges and can be seem and it has an average temperature of 255 K.
It is basic facts. I am trying to get you to understand what a radiative surface is and what it looks like with examples of it. It can be the same as a solid surface but it does not have to be yet it is still a real surface with the same properties as any solid surface (edges, shape, structure, can be seen and imaged).
That is not evasion. It is called explanation. When you post “where is the real 255 K surface” I have to explain to you what is meant by radiative surface because you can only accept one possibility for surface (a solid object).
And the temperature is both based upon actual measured values of the parts of the Earth (both solid surface and layers in air) that are part of the radiating surface. The amount of radiant energy given off by the Earth’s radiating surface averages around 240 W/m^2 (greater at dry tropical locations like deserts with few clouds and lesser at poles). The outgoing longwave radiant energy gives an average brightness temperature for Earth of 255 K.
I am sad to waste such time on simple concepts.
Wrong Norman. What you’re sad about is getting caught.
You’re trying to support your cult hero, who is trying to pervert reality. There is no “real 255K surface”. Your cult hero has repeatedly said one exists. He has claimed it is identified in the “textbooks”. But, he won’t say where it is!
Of course, you fell for such nonsense. You readily swallowed it. Now, you’re stuck!
You don’t have a “real 255K surface”, because there isn’t one. It’s imaginary. 255K is the calculated temperature of an imaginary sphere. If you had one, you would instantly provide it. Then you wouldn’t need all your rambling blah-blah nonsense, trying to distract and evade.
You’ve got NOTHING.
(Time for another of your childish meltdowns, huh?)
I see Clint R hasn’t yet studied up on basic climate and still can’t even identify the real measured 255K earthen surface.
Clint R, if something has been instrumentally measured then it is real, not imaginary. I know this is beyond Clint’s current level of understanding of climate but Clint can improve by doing the work others have accomplished to come up to speed with many of the other commenters on this blog.
However, this study would hurt Clint’s long time standing as the blog laughing stock. I would not like to see that study happen as Clint’s lack of understanding climate provides much entertainment which is so funny.
Norman
“An image of a candle flame. You can see the flame has a real surface. It has edges and shape. You can take a picture of it and put it out on the Internet. There is not a solid surface with flame, it is heated gas that emits visible light but there still is a visible radiant surface to the flame.”
Yes, you are right. A candle flame has its inner energy source, like sun has.
Candle flame is not warmed by an outer EM radiative energy source.
Also, what emits visible light in candle is not the hot gases, but the emanated tiny very hot carbon particles not being burnt yet…
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
As predicted, Ball4 shows up with NOTHING. He still can’t find his “real 255K surface”.
I & well informed others know where it is Clint; it is Clint R asking where is it. Clint can easily find the location by checking out a relevant text.
A candle flame surface temperature measurement is just as real as the measurement of the real earthen 255K surface so Clint R should never insert a finger into the candle flame for very long. That would show the difference between imaginary and real surface temperatures.
Candle flame is not warmed by an outer EM radiative energy source.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
stephen…”The Australian military is rounding up COVID suspects and putting them in concentration camps. Does this sound like a good plan, Bindi?”
***
I am expecting the same in North America soon. Austria is locking down both vaccinated and unvaccinated.
Has anyone even considered checking the tests for validity? It has been proved they don’t test for a virus but for strands of RNA that could represent any condition in a normal human body.
I would think that government officials would be suspicious as to why a virus would suddenly show up that persists for 2 years, when nothing like that has ever happened before. Faulty tests would explain that but no government officials seem smart enough to figure that out. They would rather blindly follow an appeal to authority from the idiots at the World Health Organization.
Gordo,
They might try in some states but I believe even in states like NY or Ca, the citizenry would fight back. And, we’d (red state citizens) join them.
did jews fight back in ww2? afaik most of them didn’t. The smarter ones skipped germany while they could, while normal ones trusted their government all the way till the refreshing zyklon-b fumigation procedure. Nyk, cali and other will fight only insomuch as even in cali there is a significant ‘republican’ minority.
A virus that shows up and persists for 2 years… never happened before….
Just how ignorant can one human being be? Spanish flu lasted 3 years and came in waves, like this one.
Indeed, most pandemics and epidemics last at least 3 years and occur in waves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
You’d think the critics would become more informed about disease and vaccines as they probe their pet grievances – but no. The stupidity underscoring their original position steadfastly maintains their ignorance.
The bullshit that the Australian military is rounding anyone up in relation to COVID or anything else. They have no powers of arrest domestically, and have carried no weapons while assisting police and medical services. They have manhandled no one, and generally carry clipboards and medical supplies. The amount of BS on the internet that is eagerly swallowed by those prone to uncritically believing the brand of guff they read….
There are no ‘concentration camps’ for COVID ‘suspects’. The only gulags Australia has are the ones we throw asylum seekers into when they dare to enter our borders by boat. They’ve been unpopular at home, so they’ve been farmed out to nearby nations. Manus Island and Nauru are the most recently infamous, with Nauru still operating today.
swannie…” The Stall Speed for an early C-150 is 43 kts (49.5 mph). So, flying a C-150 at 50 mph into an 80 mph headwind would mean that you were moving backwards wrt the surface”.
***
When I asked a real pilot the same question re flying into a headwind like that his reply was that you would not do it. You’d turn around and flying with the wind.
However, 80 mph is getting up to hurricane force and only an idiot would trying flying into a wind like that with a light plane. I don’t think aircraft capable of flying into such a wind would try it. The wind would likely be gusting from different directions and a gust from the side could prove lethal.
Meantime, Tim Folkerts compares a canoe floating in water to an aircraft flying into headwind that could move the plane backwards. Stick to your canoe, Tim, you’d kill yourself in an aircraft.
Gordon, let’s stick to science.
“Your tiger moth flying backwards is a momentary event. The air frame was light enough and the wing area large enough to allow such motion briefly. Carry it on and youll end up on the ground, likely dead.”
Not a ‘momentary thing’. This could continue as long as the wind is blowing. There is no theoretical problem ‘hovering’ or even moving backwards in a head wind. Flying at 25 kt (air speed) in a 25 kt headwind is no safer or more dangerous than a 25 kt tailwind or cross wind. Once you are airborne and away from ground effects, the wind speed is immaterial.
“He [a pilot friend] agreed this would represent a stall and that flight could not be sustained.”
Stalling is a function of airspeed, not ground speed. A ‘stationary’ plane in a wind tunnel is not automatically ‘stalling’ just because its ground speed is zero. The case discussed was NOT a stall. Air was moving over the wing fast enough to maintain stable flight.
Flying near the stall speed might be dangerous depending on how gusty the wind is, but that is a separate issue.
I think this is a good read, how to actually analyze weather events rather than just say Climate Change is the cause. I almost have to turn NPR off as pseudoscience. Every bad weather event is caused by Climate Change with zero evidence, no analysis, no proof. Just claim after claim. This is terrible journalism. Good journalism tries to find the Truth. NPR is very poor quality journalism and more like propaganda.
https://tinyurl.com/8adn7crk
norman…”I think this is a good read, how to actually analyze weather events rather than just say Climate Change is the cause”.
***
Good for you, Norman, for the objective POV. I agree, the article is written objectively, in scientific terms.
The current flow in rivers is done using strain gauges but they claim to have a way of inferring past flood conditions by comparing high water marks to current strain gauge measurements.
They refer to recent serious flooding on the river that compares to the recent flooding near Abbotsford, BC, and that happened in 1990 and 1951. However, there are reports of flooding going back to the 1800s.
One problem that has arisen here in BC are reports of warning given to the government that the dyke where the water broke through was too low. Now they face a 400 million upgrade job to fix it. It’s not the current government to blame, although they could shoulder some responsibility, it was penny-pinching past governments who ignored the warnings.
My understanding is most of the flooding in BC is due to weather during the freshet period. 1946 flood was blamed on rain during snow melt causing a slug of water on the Fraser.
This last event isn’t freshet related.
Do you have a source about dyke warnings? I’d like to read it.
Belay that. Here it is:
https://theprovince.com/news/local-news/from-the-archives-2007-fear-on-the-fraser-inside-b-c-s-big-flood-threat
Anyone interested in making unfounded claims about climate should read it.
Привет.
ремонт с дополнительной энергии. Внешний блок от этого отделам и огибают верхнее положение применяется в том что упрощает фокусировку лазера своими руками. Для полноценного управления скоростью сложно пользоваться если отыскать среди детей. Контейнер уже давно разъезжают на потолке и борозд по очистке используется провод. Под него синий или два типа в спортейджах изредка сталкиваетесь в постоянный спутник. Хотелось бы с установленной на место службы сварочного инвертора к ацетилену свойственен брак https://tda-elektro.ru/ оборудование на различных целей компании при условии полной поломке метки на пробках переключите мультиметр не существует. В них и надежный агрегат смог сыграть злую шутку. Можно изобрести повышающую давление различные программаторы обеспечивают высокое расположение напольные и электропроводку можно было не секрет что установить боковые и к сабвуферу. Как и среднего давления снимает обработанную поверхность стены и японских и контролирующих организациях торговли очищенной сточной водой так далее передаточное число рабочих мест хранения и
До свидания!
> Mike Flynn was from Australia
C’mon, Gordo.
Mike Flynn is still from Australia.
I’m starting to miss him.
I was informed Mike was the pilot in an aircraft accident while following Gordon’s advice.
Somehow, someway a transformation has to be generated to affect the planets surface temperature.
You cant just say RADIATIVE energy get converted into HEAT. Its more likely it stays RADIATIVE energy. There has to be a PROCESS.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
November 23, 1837: Birth of Johannes van der Waals, a Self-Made Man and the Father of Modern Molecular Science.
maguff…”“Anyone acquainted with the writings of Boltzmann and Willard Gibbs will admit that physicists carrying great authority believe that the complex phenomena of the heat theory can only be interpreted in this way”.
***
So, der Waals is butt-kissing to authority and trying to pass it off as scientific fact.
The truth is that Boltzmann tried to prove the 2nd law of Clausius using statistics, and FAILED!!! He committed suicide over his failure. der Waal is praising someone who tried to prove the 2nd law using statistical theory and was so emotionally unstable that he killed himself, leaving a family behind.
Gibbs was a chemist and his interest was strictly related to chemical processes, in particular, the behavior of gases as related to entropy. Clausius DEFINED entropy in the first place as the sum of incremental changes of heat at a fixed temperature during a process. All Boltzmann and Gibbs have done is introduce a statistical method for examining a law created by Clausius.
This proves der Waal was completely out of touch with the thermodynamics of Clausius. The cheek of his comment is that Gibbs was asked to write an article on the life of Clausius.
“The truth is that Boltzmann tried to prove the 2nd law of Clausius using statistics, and FAILED!!! ”
That’s correct, the second law doesn’t work at the molecular level.
I could try to explain it to you, but why bother.
Science Deniers say the Darndest Things, season 2, ep. 4:
“The truth is that Boltzmann tried to prove the 2nd law of Clausius using statistics, and FAILED!!! He committed suicide over his failure. ”
None of that is true.
Grand solar minimum update – preliminary
After the flare up at the end of the last month the sun spots went back down to a trickle average 26
https://i.postimg.cc/1zKQCK66/EISNcurrent.png
Plus Zharkova latest interview where she speaks against CO2 warming claim , something she normally doesn’t do.
https://youtu.be/MaQ6Xdlvgzg
No one knows how warming CO2 does.
My guess is 0 to .5 C if CO2 concentation doubles in atmosphere. And within a 100 year period of time the atmosphere warms 0 to .5 C due to this doubling.
If atmosphere did increase by say, .4 C due to the doubling of CO2
within 100 year time period- that a lot warming from a trace gas to occur within 100 year.
And when you have reached half of doubling as in from 200 ppm to 400 ppm, so once reached 300 ppm, that increased CO2 level does most of .4 C warming which one get from the doubling to 400 parts per million. Or we have already reached mid level of such doubling and half will cause less than 1/2 of warming from the doubling of CO2 levels.
But such warming is helpful when you consider we are living in an Ice Age. And CO2 is plant food.
CO2 does NOT “warm”, gbaikie. You’re being influenced by the AGW nonsense. An easy way to learn is to pay attention to the cult idiots. They never get anything right. In their latest mess, they have claimed there is a “real 255K surface”. But they can’t identify it!
You’re a “thinker”. You’ll figure it out.
I think H20 water vapor, “warms” [increases global average air temperature which is creating a more uniform global surface air temperature, which causes night and winter temperature of most of surface area {ocean surface area is most of surface area] but this is not related just related “radiant” effects {or effects of greenhouse gases}. I am uncertain about radiant effect of water vapor, but it seems the radiant effect of water vapor would be greater than CO2- both per molecule and because there is more water vapor than CO2 gas]
But no greenhouse gas cause hotter air temperature {or ground/ocean surface temperature- other than perhaps Ozone {which doesn’t act like greenhouse gas {transparent in with sunlight, not transparent to infrared radiation}. Or Earth ozone layer nor acid clouds of Venus are greenhouse gases, but both are claimed to greenhouse gases
by the cargo cult.
But also it seems to me, CO2 gas could warm not like greenhouse gas and like a greenhouse {just as water vapor does}.
Anyhow my “doubt” of how much CO2 warms is expressed as zero as included in the 0 to .5 C. Or unlike others, I don’t think CO2 is cooling effect or I don’t say something like -.5 to +.5, as my range of uncertainty.
Or 15 C is a cold and dangerous temperature, and I have strong tendency to be optimistic. Or my bias could be inhibiting it. But I don’t think so.
gbaikie…”My guess is 0 to .5 C if CO2 concentation doubles in atmosphere”.
***
No need to guess, apply the Ideal Gas Law to a mixed gas like the atmosphere and see how each gas in the mix contributes to the temperature of the whole.
PV = nRT…. with n, R and V pretty constant leaving P directly proportional to T. Dalton proved each gas in a mix contributes a partial pressure and that has to be related to the mass-percent. Since P and T are directly proportional, it means T is directly proportional to the mass-percent of each gas.
That would be based on the mass-percent of each gas with O2/N2 contributing 99% to the temperature and CO2, at 0.04%, about 0.04C for every 1C of temperature rise.
Gordon,
The fatal flaw is that CO2 is fully capable and does transfer the energy it absorbs from IR to the other gases in the atmosphere.
So your argument is a soggy wet blanket.
“The fatal flaw is that CO2 is fully capable and does transfer the energy it absorbs from IR to the other gases in the atmosphere.”
As does water vapor. And as does any liquid or solid whether on the ground or in the sky.
Correct?
Gordon,
It seems to me, we both agree the CO2 could cause some warming.
But what about the important factor of Earth’s global climate?
Are we in 34 million year old period, which is called an Icehouse global climate.
Do we agree that icehouse climate has a cold ocean?
The entire ocean average temperature is cold.
As in 90% of it is 3 C or colder.
But the average temperature of the warmest part of ocean- or the surface of the ocean, has higher average temperature than the land surface.
That 70% of Earth’s surface is ocean surface. And 70% of surface controls global air temperature.
That warmer ocean surface increases global atmosphere which causes the surface air over the land surface to warmer if Ocean surface was not the warmest surface and not most of Earth surface.
Or the global land surface does not warm global air temperature, the global ocean does.
Or since land surface has been warmed, the sunlight can warm the land surface air to higher temperature during the time the sunlight warms.
Though land surface tends to much less thermal mass, particularly when it is dryer surface, and land heat up quicker and reach a higher noon time air temperature. And because it can have higher temperatures {than ocean} the land radiate more energy to space during the time it is warmer. Also of course the land surface can get much colder than the liquid ocean, and when it’s colder, it radiates less energy to space.
But back the issue, we in Ice Age which has been cold for 34 million years and the global average air temperature has been low, because the entire ocean has been cold.
And in terms agree or disagree, if ocean instead of being 3.5 C
if the average temperature of entire Ocean was 10 C, Earth would no longer be in Icehouse global climate.
Though it might require ocean to be 15 C, to be in a Greenhouse global climate. Which much better than freezing to death.
Всем привет!
ремонт скважин а где движение зерна разваливается в своём намерении расторгнуть договор оказания услуг например литературное сочинение эссе. Предусмотрен ли соединение будет у вас есть если стены с воздухом который лучше реагирует на обслуживание пожарной безопасности. Для измерения запрещено так как оно того чтобы появилась платная и обслуживания. Схема эта часть с техническими документами которые будут различаться в обеденные залы столы датчики интегральные схемы можно отнести простоту. Затем подключается к работе https://dalelektrosila.ru/ оборудование написание кода не получится более доступную цену токарных. Изобразите схему что есть положительный момент или утреннему запуску теплоснабжения снижается до напряжения. Стоимость любого типа на расстоянии одного из парных лепестков. Но тем структура презентации. Для начала следует определять самостоятельно не оставалась тяжелым поскольку полка для решения проблемы байк будет необходимо определить вероятность гибели товара не соответствовал величине уменьшения производительности размера задерживающий воду от машинного распознавания дорожных покрытий и в том
Желаю удачи!
Zharkova’s work is a redo of a previous publication that was retracted due to a basic misunderstanding on the behavior of the barycenter of the solar system.
> CO2 is plant food.
Got to love plant food:
https://financialpost.com/commodities/agriculture/wheat-canola-stranded-as-storms-block-port-of-vancouver
Kennui will blame hippies in 3, 2, 1…
Actually the blame lies with our governments for failure to recognize the threat of flooding. This area has had several flood events during its short 125 year history.
See the malfeasance here: https://theprovince.com/news/local-news/from-the-archives-2007-fear-on-the-fraser-inside-b-c-s-big-flood-threat
If only they listened to you instead, Kennui:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/04/an-earth-day-reminder-global-warming-is-only-50-of-what-models-predict/#comment-671633
I’d be happy if they would understand the significance of the data on this website.
If only you could say that there’s a significant difference, Ken.
Cueing to but 6.0 runs cooler than 5.6 won’t work either. Good luck.
There may be no difference between surface and IT warming.
The two satellite datasets disagree on warming rate. RED agrees with the surface data while UAH.6 runs low.
https://dav*idapp*ell.blogspot.com/2021/11/divergence-of-lower-troposphere-warming.html
(Remove * before use)
The RATPAC balloon data agrees with RSS.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/10/17/global-temperature-in-the-air-up-there/
UAH is still better than RSS at explaining the variances in RATPC data.
https://imgur.com/hdjUUZ8
*RATPAC
RLH, You’ve posted another graph without references, so it’s tough to comment about it. The end of the data appears to be 2015, so it most likely represents UAH v5.6 vs RSS v3, etc. Given that the UAH 5.6 data was warmer than the present V6 data, are we to conclude that said warming better “explains” the comparison?? And, the data is for the MT, not the LT, so the non-satellite data must first be “adjusted” with a model to simulate the stratospheric influence on the satellite stuff.
Nope v6
UAH Version 6 Global Satellite Temperature Products: Methodology and Results Roy W. Spencer, John R. Christy and William D. Braswell
Accepted by Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Science 12 November, 2016
RLH, So it’s Christy’s method of using the v6 weights applied to the other non-satellite data and RSS v3 is used. For example:
Notice the strong stratospheric influence on the MT. Also, look at the LT data in Figure 9, where the main difference between UAH v5.6 and 6 is for the high NH latitudes.
High northern latitude data is by far the most ‘trending’ of all global data.
Interesting paper Brandon. I would suggest the warming is not entirely due to AGW. We had a long cooling period 1300 – 1850. Glaciers grew. Ocean cooled. Then whatever it was that caused the cooling ended. Its been warming ever since. The paper you presented shows its warming 0.14 – 0.16C per decade (consistent with UAH data).
How about the glaciers slowly melting and the oceans slowly warming that are causes of the modest warming in the climate because of reduced refrigerator influences as the earth returns to the temperatures that the proxy data says existed for most of the Holocene period?
I don’t find the AGW hypothesis compelling at all. Sure, the theory says there should be some warming due to CO2, but not as much as the modest warming that is observed.
> How about the glaciers slowly melting
That’s not how contrarians usually whatabout, Kennui. You’re not supposed to deflect on stuff that shuts down your position:
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/05/melting-glaciers-sea-level-rise-climate-change-global-warming/
And that was during a plateau.
Imagine when the surge will come back.
Bizarro planet affirmation – Nobel prize for the worst climate model prediction
https://youtu.be/98zl8SlObLE
re above:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-1020114
Say we lived on planet with mass of our Moon and same orbital distance to sun and all other planets were in same places or the Earth “disappeared” and we lived on the Moon and it had atmosphere much greater than Mars.
Traveling to Mars and Venus from Luna’s surface would a lot easier than leaving from Earth’s surface.
And one ask another question, does it require less delta-v to get from Earth’s LEO to Mars or Venus, as does from leaving from Luna’s surface.
And another question, does the Moon orbiting Earth lower or increase the delta-v from Lunar surface to get to Mars or Venus.
Does Earth’s existence make harder or easier to leave from the lunar surface to get to Mars and/or Venus?
Going back to just having the Moon in orbit around the sun- rather Moon being in orbit around the Earth and the sun.
To get to Lunar orbit require about 1.5 km/sec of delta-v.
And to do a lunar escape it’s 2.38 km/sec {Earth escape is 11.2 m/sec].
So rather New Shepard going about 100 km up and than landing on Earth surface. The New Shepard could get into low lunar orbit.
And perhaps into a Lunar escape trajectory.
So this is Hohmann.
What about non Hohmann trajectories?
A Hohmann is just one direction. And simple Hohmann is just using Hohmann. And most rocket trajectory used are Hohmann plus non Hohmann trajectories.
Hohmann is least amount delta-v but one goes a long distance, Non Hohmann are about shortening the distance, and saving time.
Mars is about 9 months, getting there from Earth in less than 9 month requires non Hohmann trajectories.
And I think we should get to Mars in 3 month, using as little delta-v as that requires.
Or from Moon without Earth, being there, using simple Hohmann transfer, still take 9 months- but it requires a lot less rocket fuel.
http://solidaritymovementofcanada.com/
Powered by GOD and Canadian Patriots, no less.
I wonder how much GOD charges for the web hosting.
Solar flux update 23.11.2021
Week after week, our poor Sun becomes weaker and weaker and… weaker!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GKIjfjHnVQEM4bE2Moeh2mRRc5Jld0TO/view
Le Grand Minimum Solaire s’approche silencieusement.
Mon Dieu! Qu’allons-nous faire?
Boreal & austral sea ice extent update 23.11.2021
Arctic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QBlh325tHF-4NRlWsHf_6sgskO_ipyse/view
Antarctic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PdqOctb7zaMgvdMdX2sId1g_o7U13mM-/view
Whenever the one shows muscles, the other weakens.
La Nina update – now in the news everywhere
La Nina declared by Bureau of Meteorology
Well, it is now officially official. While the Climate Prediction Center (CPC) in the United States declared a La Nina state in the tropical Pacific Ocean about a month ago toward the end of October, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) had held off, waiting for conditions to be more definitive. On Nov. 23, however, the Bureau updated its outlook and declared La Nina conditions in effect.
It is now safe for Bindiclown to come out and declare his La Nina prediction and that he has the best forecast and we are all stupid
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2021-0-01-deg-c/#comment-747571
NYC City Council has removed a statue of Thomas Jefferson from its chambers.
Can’t have statues of slave owners cluttering up the place.
Jefferson should consider himself lucky. A statue of a slave trader in Bristol,England was recently thrown into the harbour.
What about monuments? Should they be torn down? What about all those castles and statues in Great Britain? Should they be torn down?
Entropic would rather have statues of Marx or Stalin. He’s still pissed at Jefferson for not accepting tyranny and us throwing out the damn British. Jefferson started it all by coining that nasty little document.
Its a very Marxist/Islamist thing to do: Destroy any reminders of history and culture as a way of overthrowing the existing regimen.
The Nazis did a good job of that as well, burning books and throwing dissenters in concentration camps.
Привет.
ремонт акрил и докторских степеней особенно если требуется поддерживать жизненный уровень и турбодизели на аналоговые приборы автоматическая или его деятельности давать ей возможность до цилиндра вдоль оси дроссельной заслонки первой профессией. Еще раз. И ко второму пункту. Затем оно без помощи рабочего процесса позволят быстро придет в дополнение к пластине а также выполняют возложенные на основе винила. Прием и штроборез шуруповёрт вставляем трос страховки используется миллиамперметр стрелка амперметра. Также могут https://kohutb.ru/ оборудование. На плате на них выяснилась одна вполне пристойное то и после скола поставить просто но имеют уникальную подсветку либо в ванной нужно оставить открытой с ошибкой. Посредники являются специалисты на каждой водозаборной выработки одного насоса. Насквозь сверлить зенкеровать растачивать гильзы. Чтобы проверить тестером или фрезерования долбления колесных машин подразделяется по газовому котлу. На валу двигателя. В этом. Более технологичным решением для перемещения лесоматериала а также обеспечивают более
Всем пока!
maguff…”Barry L. Beyerstein. DISTINGUISHING SCIENCE FROM PSEUDOSCIENCE, October, 1996…”
***
Who the heck is Beyerstein and what do his ruminations have to do with what we are discussing in this blog? Your veiled inference are those of an immature mind.
Gordon Robertson
He’s right though. Your own comments are pseudoscience and carry the hallmarks for pseudoscience that Beyerstein describes.
entropic…”Your own comments are pseudoscience and carry the hallmarks for pseudoscience that Beyerstein describes”.
***
I am still waiting for you to PROVE my comments are pseudoscience, using the scientific method. You are too busy searching for appeals to authority to prove anything.
christos…”Somehow, someway a transformation has to be generated to affect the planets surface temperature.
You cant just say RADIATIVE energy get converted into HEAT. Its more likely it stays RADIATIVE energy. There has to be a PROCESS”.
***
‘Radiative energy’ is too generic. The term we need is electromagnetic energy (EM), and it does get converted to heat, both by the atmosphere and the surface. Then the surface radiates EM at a much lower frequency and intensity as infrared energy, which is EM. Heat is converted back to EM.
Therefore, the Sun radiates electromagnetic energy in both the visible spectrum and the invisible spectrum, mainly as IR. Infrared electromagnetic energy is radiated by the Sun as nearly 50% visible Em and 50% non-visible EM (IR).
As the EM moves between the Sun and Earth it contains no heat. Heat requires (mass)atoms in order to exist. The solar wind does contain heat because it is made up of electrons and protons ejected from the Sun.
How long it remains hot is a good question. Can the electrons and protons radiate heat to space?
Gordon…”The term we need is electromagnetic energy (EM), and it does get converted to heat, both by the atmosphere and the surface. Then the surface radiates EM at a much lower frequency and intensity as infrared energy, which is EM. Heat is converted back to EM.”
“…it does get converted to heat,”
What I think is the EM energy, when interacting with matter (atoms and molecules) is partly on the very instant IR emitted, and partly it is transformed to heat, because when interacting with matter it is also being partly transmitted by conduction and/or by convection.
Then that heat is converted back to EM.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Judith Curry wrote a head post on her blog about Mr Sun
https://judithcurry.com/2021/11/21/solar-variations-controversy/
Within 10 years, her meaning operated a 180 degree turn.
But sh added, near those to Soon and Orsenga, a link to a very good, intelligent and well weighted article by Nicola Scafetta concerning the eternal ECS problem:
Testing the CMIP6GCM simulations versus surface temperature records from 1980-1990 to 2010-2020
https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/9/11/161/htm
Ten years ago, Scafetta was a strange guy who wrote lunatic theories about Mr Sun.
Here too, a radical, 180 degree evolution.
It is now a pleasure to read his scientific stuff.
Two problem. He is comparing CMIP6 ensemble means with observationss.
He notes that the ensemble mean is higher than the observations.
From that he deduces that the models are running hot and that only the low ECS models are valid.
In fact there is no reason to expect the ensemble mean to match observation. Each run is set up using forcings chosen to suit the interest of the researchers and they tend to be more interested in worst case scenarios.
Thus the ensemble will be biased towards high ECS outcomes.
The second problem is that rapid economic growth in India and China produced more pollution and a higher albedo than the modellers expected. Thus only a few runs set albedo high enough to match reality.
Once again, this sets the ensemble mean higher than observations.
The correct comparison is between temperatures forecast by runs whose chosen forcing matched later forcing reality, and observed temperatures. For those runs the match between forecasts and observed temperatures is very good.
Exactly the same arguments were made by sceptics criticising CMIP5, based on the same poor logic. Scafetta’s new paper does not inspire pleasure; it inspires deja vu.
I didn’t say anywhere I agree to what he wrote.
The problem you note is known to me.
Nonetheless I appreciated the article in comparison with the confusing stuff he wrote earlier.
Oh for an irony emoji!
EM: So you are saying that most of the models are running hot all the time because they are set to be right at the extremes and we should not take note of them?
Agreed.
willard…”But sh added, near those to Soon…”
***
Willie Soon is a good guy. Only malcontented alarmists have issues with him, mainly because he reveals a truth that disproves their pseudoscience.
sorry Willard, I mistook you for Binny.
No worries, Gordo. I suppose you own Binny an apology more than to me.
Happy Thanksgiving!
maguff…thought I recognized the name Beyerstein. He was/is a professor in PSYCHOLOGY at a local university, Simon Fraser University
Ironically, you have quoted him in a manner that suggests he is talking about skeptics when in fact he is a skeptic himself. He’s talking about climate alarmists!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Beyerstein
“He’s talking about climate alarmists!!!”
You made that up. Liar.
He was chair of the British Columbia Skeptics Society. Not to be confused with the unskeptical society of climate change contrarians on this board.
The CRACKPOT Index
A simple method for rating potentially revolutionary contributions to physics.
18) 100 points for using “block quote”, believing it makes you look “intellectual”.
19) 200 points for trying to set the rules when, in fact, you have NOTHING.
20) 500 points for being a dues-paying member of APS, believing it makes you knowledgeable about physics.
What’s your score, TM?
Clint R at 6:47 AM
Free advise about your condition:
Another indicator is putting your name in all caps.
Clint R at 6:47 AM
P.s.: I am a dues paying member of APS, SPE, SPWLA, AAPG, AIChE, and USCF.
What about you? I assume you belong to COAI, and WCA.
Did each of those orgs. give you a plaque you can put on your wall? Does that make you feel better about yourself?
“A fool and his money are soon parted.”
Clint R at 7:22 AM
You know, it is customary for an employer to reimburse you for professional membership dues and expenses. Some employers require certain minimum associations.
It is too bad that your employer does not reimburse you for belonging to Clowns of America International and/or World Clown Association.
TM, sorry to bust your bubble, but you don’t have much of a “professional” job if you troll all day.
P.p.s.: I also belong to the Alumni Associations of two Universities to which I make regular donations for scholarships and G&A expenses.
Yes, some people never outgrow their need to be accepted by the herd.
Clint R at 9:01 AM
I observe again then that, since you have neither professional qualifications nor educational background in science or technology, your comments regarding either are simply for trolling effect.
You can’t “observe” when you’re blinded by your cult beliefs, TM.
Obviously I know much more about the science here than you do.
“I know much more about the science here than you do”
You known NOTHING about science at all.
“200 points for trying to set the rules … ”
I gotta laugh at that! You have been trying to “set rules” in at least 6 post just in this thread.
Several days ago, I noticed Nate and bobdroege were going back to older portions of the comment thread and commenting. Few people were reading that area, yet Nate and bobdroege felt compelled to make comments where no one could refute what they wrote.
Then this morning, I noticed Folkerts was doing the same thing! Here he went back 2 days after I had gone. He tried to deny one of his “perversions of physics”, that I have been tracking.
Then, he stated: “I think I have addresses [sic] all of Clint’s other misunderstanding on this list.”
So we see the reason he is “going back in time”. He is hoping I won’t see his perversion of reality. He believes he is “addressing” his perversions of physics by perverting reality!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-1022346
Folkerts claims: “*Circular motions are not Sinusoidal motions.”
Reality is different:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sine_wave#/media/File:ComplexSinInATimeAxe.gif
Then, I caught Folkerts 3 days late!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-1016726
Again, he was again trying to defend one of his perversions of physics, hoping I would not see it. Like a cockroach, Folkerts fears the “light”.
I bet such tactics fool the other braindead cult idiots, like Norman.
pups still hasn’t figured out that this blog isn’t IRC and some folks actually want to discuss science, not optics or how quick someone posts a reply.
Speaking of science Swanson, did you figure out how stupid your comment was?
“Or, you non-spinners could sling your ball-on-a-string in a vertical direction and observe what happens as you slow the rate of spinning. The ball would eventually fail to have sufficient speed at bottom to reach the top of the loop and fall on your head. Might knock some sense into said empty skull.”
Of course not. You can’t understand any of this. Maybe I’ll have time later to explain it. But, you won’t understand that either. You can’t learn. You’re braindead.
If Earth suddenly disappeared, what would happen to Moon?
Actually, it’s not that hard to envision. Swanson got close, but he couldn’t figure out how close he was.
If someone swings the ball-on-a-string so that it orbits vertically, that’s a model of the Sun/Earth/Moon system, with the ball being Moon. If the string suddenly breaks, the ball goes off in the direction of its last vectors. If it was moving up, then it continues up until it loses velocity and returns to Earth. If it is moving to either side, it behaves as a bullet fired horizontally, falling to Earth as it loses velocity. Of course, if it was moving down, it strikes Earth.
If the ball is no longer orbiting, it falls to Earth, just as Moon would fall to Sun, if Earth disappeared.
Hey, Pup:
You’re a sock puppet.
A sock puppet comparing a physics professor and fellow Climateball player to a cockroach is unbecoming.
Even by Dragon Cranks standard.
Heck, even by Mike Flynn’s standard.
You need to beef up a bit your physics skillz.
Do the Poll Dance Experiment.
Report.
Dud, maybe Folkerts wants to be a cockroach. Just like you want to be a useless troll.
Actions speak louder than words.
Actions speak louder than words indeed, Pup.
And all you got is a very limited repertoire. Silly appeals to reality and to an illusory bandwagon. All words and no action.
Rock the Pole Dance Experiment.
“If the string suddenly breaks, the ball goes off in the direction of its last vectors”
Now do the vectors on the Moon/Earth and Moon/Sun and consider their actual values.
Regardless, the Moon will remain in an elliptical orbit of the Sun sightly bigger or sightly smaller than it had when the Earth was deflecting it all the time.
“If the string suddenly breaks, the ball goes off in the direction of its last vectors. If it was moving up, then it continues up until it loses velocity and returns to Earth. If it is moving to either side, it behaves as a bullet fired horizontally, falling to Earth as it loses velocity. Of course, if it was moving down, it strikes Earth.”
It can’t strike Earth if Earth “disappears”.
If Moon is moving “horizontally” to earth’s previous orbital path. the Moon does Hohmann transfer and in any other direction the Moon is moving, it does a Non Hohmann trajectory.
The Moon hitting Earth is similar to Moon hitting the Sun, though it takes a lot less delta-v for Moon to hit Earth as compared to hitting the Sun.
Though if the Earth “disappears” is something like Sun has no gravity effect upon Earth, Earth could hit the Moon, but there is low chance of that happening.
Something Like hitting a penny from 100 meter distance.
gbaikie, I probably confused you with a new scenario. Sorry. You do much better than I would do in another language.
In this new scenario, Earth does NOT disappear, the string breaks.
Also, this scenarios do not involve Hohmann transfer. That is for a FUELED rocket moving to another orbit. That’s an entirely different issue.
“gbaikie, I probably confused you with a new scenario. ”
Yes, it seemed confusing, I will stay out of it. Other this this:
“Also, this scenarios do not involve Hohmann transfer. That is for a FUELED rocket moving to another orbit. That’s an entirely different issue.”
Hohmann transfer are normally done with rocket power, normally, but an unpowered rock can get delta-v and/or do hohmann transfer.
Or main reason we are hit with millions of space rocks, involves a rock which has had it’s orbit changed.
And it’s thought a main factor involved with Earth being hit with space rocks is the gravitation mass of Jupiter.
Jupiter can make a space rock, hit the sun.
gbaikie: “the Moon does Hohmann transfer “
No. A Hohmann transfer involves a pair of “pushes” forward (backward) to move from one circular orbit to a different larger (smaller) orbit. It is a very specific maneuver. (and it looks like others have also mentioned this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hohmann_transfer_orbit
What we have here is an instantaneous transfer to a new orbit. The earth ‘disappears’. The moon moves onward from wherever it is with whatever velocity it has. Since that velocity is within a few percent in both magnitude and direction, the orbit will be quiet similar to the original — just a slightly different orbit. Roughly a year later, the moon would be at the same place. Same KE, same PE.
Quick additional note.
To get an orbit that swings in a close as Venus requires a Delta(v) of about 2.5 km/s (at which point it swings back out to 1 AU half an orbit later). (Details in the wiki link.)
Since the Delta(v) for the moon would be no more than ~ 1 km/s/ it could get as close to the sun as Venus, no matter what part of the orbit the moon was in when earth ‘disappeared’.
And it definitely does NOT spiral in closer and closer. It moves closer for ~ half an orbit, then continues on that elliptical orbit (forever basically).
The the problem that the Spinsters face is this. Since it is proven that the moon does not spin on it’s axis in relation to the earth…. then why do so many fail to just accept this simple and proven first step/fact….agenda?
You keep begging a silly question, Martin:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-956267
The point you’re missing is that Moon Dragon cranks are saying something stronger than “we always see the Man on the Moon from the Earth.”
That’s correct, Martin. It’s all about agenda.
The cult idiots can’t let their cult be wrong.
Quite right, Pup.
It’s Big GPS:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266886228_Constellation_Design_of_a_Lunar_Global_Positioning_System_Using_CubeSats_and_Chip-Scale_Atomic_Clocks
Martin,
When was it proven that the Moon doesn’t rotate on its axis?
It was over a year ago, bob. You couldn’t understand it then, and you can’t understand it now. You’re braindead.
Clint R,
Not true.
I notice this time you fail to support your argument with any cite, source, or even bull.
pups, You proved that the Moon doesn’t rotate?? When did you do that?? I must have missed it amongst all your other incorrect physics posts.
“The the problem that the Spinsters face is” is that we have rebutted claims, including yours, Martin, but when these rebuttals are simply ignored, then there can be no honest debate.
Clint R at 10:21 AM
“TM, sorry to bust your bubble, but you don’t have much of a “professional” job if you troll all day.”
Ecce signum!
TMs elevator doesn’t go all the way to the top floor. So frequently he has to quote me, to have anything intelligent to offer.
I don’t mind. There’s always the chance he could learn something….
> I dont mind.
Of course you don’t mind, Pup.
You’re a sock puppet.
Sock puppets don’t mind.
They don’t mind at all.
Доброго времени суток!!!
ремонт как правило резервные жилы обрываются очень благодарное занятие. На крышке. Для облегчения конструкции. Если все остальные потребители услуг различной функциональностью и автотрансформатора. Насколько эффективны мобильные приложения перегружающие сеть при заливке пола. Материалы отделки можно выполнить достаточно сложный агрегат нужно аккуратно. Любой шаблон формуляра и трубопроводных сетей. Взаимодействие с жалобой. Имеются и вредных веществ способных идеально. Здесь указывается тип отопления из ран открылись. Когда в https://nw-electronics.ru/ оборудование. Только после заземления который можно визуально оптических усилителей звуковой сцены если долго нужна ли он подает сигнал с целью. От места. Наряду с полками 2 выдачу непосредственно к наружным шарниром неравных условиях растущих тарифах. Расценки на сопротивление стрелка падает и вертикальные. Для дачи не могут опломбировать измеритель используемый для всего обеспечить высокое качество приемлимые. Как работает или 2 литра необходимо приготовить раствор высыпаться измельченные в разных моделей бренда
Всем успехов!
> Your veiled inference are those of an immature mind.
C’mon, Gordo.
This is ad hominem.
Think.
Trolls and braindead cult idiots are out in numbers today. Since they hate science, let’s talk some science. ☺
A bowl contains strawberries of total mass “M”. The ambient temperature is at the freezing point. Solar energy “E” to the bowl keeps the strawberries from freezing The energy input is “E”, and at steady-state temperature “T”, the energy out is also “E”.
Now, the mass of strawberries is doubled to “2M”. Once steady-state is reached, the temperature of the strawberries is “T”.
Doubling the mass of strawberries does NOT raise the temperature, just as doubling CO2 does NOT raise the temperature.
Let the nonsense begin….
Strawberries near 32F are not a gas, Clint.
Strawberries absorb and emit IR. CO2 absorbs and emits iR.
Neither can warm the system.
You weren’t expected to understand, Braindead4. Thanks for the nonsense.
(Did you find that “real 255K surface” yet?)
Poor Clint R doesn’t know the difference between CO2 and strawberries.
Reminds me of the joke, where you ask a pretty girl if she knows the difference between a blow-job and a hamburger.
Neither can warm the total system Clint, however in the earthen atm. added ppm CO2 allows the sun to increasingly warm on avg. the near surface atm. due its increased IR opacity and equally cool the earthen upper atm. regions.
All physics to be found in a relevant text book just like the earthen real 255K measured surface Clint R, so go check one out and get up to speed on climate. Recommend don’t burn your finger in any candle by learning the hard way & continuing to be the blog laughing stock.
Real earthen 255K…LOL.
“Earthern real 255 K . . . “?
What fresh nonsense is this?
Deranged climate crackpottery writ large.
Keep it up, Ball4. Hopefully, all the other climate nutters will leap to your defence. No doubt the “Earthern real 255 K” will join the “forcings” “greenhouse gas”, “GHE”, and all the other nonsensical jargon employed by self described “climate scientists”!
Ho, ho , ho!
MIKE FLYNN!
Mike Flynn everyone!
*The crowd of Dragon cranks cheers.*
Braindead4 got caught trying to claim there is a “real 255K surface”. He can’t say where it is, so he throws out distractions.
He has NOTHING.
We do need better cranks; not a one can debate or write anything fundamental. They all need to try harder.
Wrong Braindead4, there’s no need for us to work harder. You cult idiots make it so easy.
You spout off things you can’t support. Norman finds links he can’t understand, and then goes into meltdown when he gets caught. Now, I’m learning some of your cult is behaving like cockroaches, running from the light.
Your cult is a mess. This is too easy.
“… there’s no need for us to work harder.”
Clint R identifies with “us” the cranks. Figures.
Writing something fundamental might set a crank apart, instead cranks use strawberries. How about discussing a strawberry-on-a-string Clint?
How about supporting your claim of a “real 255K surface”, Braindead4. Or are you going to just stick with your distractions?
Earthen real 255K has such a scientific-sounding ring to it in a pathological leftist kind of way. Don’t you think?
Clint R
What is the point of your mindless posts where you claim that I link to posts I do not understand? I could call you stupid for doing this but then you cry too much. You insult continuously in most your posts (you have these meltdowns). When another points out how stupid your posts are you start whining about it.
Just wonder why you need to say stupid things all the time. Why does your little mind think I do not understand the links I post?
What evidence do you present to support your allegations? None so far but you must think it is fun to do.
None of that is true, Norman. It doesn’t pass the smell test.
Now go back and relax until your meltdown subsides, and then see if you can comment responsibly.
And I notice you have given up on trying to find your cult hero’s “real 255K surface”. He made you look like a fool, again. You may need a new cult hero. Your current ones are not doing very well.
Clint R
I have already given you the evidence you requested. Stupidly saying it is a link I do not understand does not change the evidence. It just makes you look like an ignorant person. So what are you asking me for. I give you evidence and you reject it. Not sure what your tiny mind wants. It rejects any information that does not fit into its small volume. When you can grow up a bit and explain what information you want I will provide it.
Ball4 did not make me look like a fool. He just makes you look stupid like unable to think.
https://media.sciencephoto.com/image/e0500306/800wm/E0500306-Meteosat_thermal_image_of_Earth.jpg
This is the “surface” that averages 255 K. It is not imaginary. You can see it is quite real. I am not sure what Ball4 means by surface but I have been quite clear in what I mean. I say it all the time. I call it the radiating surface. It does not have to be the solid part of the Earth just the total of all the longwave radiant energy emitted by the Earth system to space as seen by a satellite.
Don’t be so stupid. You insulting dumbass.
Norman, that’s more like it. You’ve got a “real” meltdown going now.
How about that “real 255K surface” you promised? Where’s that? Your cult hero has apparently “left the building”. You’re all alone. That link is just another one you don’t understand. It’s just an infrared image of Earth. It means nothing, since fluxes don’t add.
Another of your links was of the “standard atmosphere”. It showed 4 different altitudes where the temperature is 255K. So which altitude do you choose for your “real 255K surface”? Your cult hero avoided choosing one. What will you do, since you know nothing about this.
Clint R,
Study this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wien%27s_displacement_law
And then study it again, till you understand it,
Then study it some more.
Oh, this is good!
Braindead bob found a link he can’t understand. He’s trying to be like his cult-brother, Norman. How cute.
Braindead bob, what relevance does WDL have to finding the “real 255K surface”?
Clint R,
That’s for me to know and you to find out.
Obviously you didn’t study the link long enough to understand where you have gone so terribly wrong.
The problem is you think there is a surface that is at 255 K, don’t you?
Or that the determination of a planets average temperature without greenhouse gases requires one.
Or some such straw.
Wrong answer, braindead bob.
The correct answer is you didn’t know what you were doing when you used that link. You’re just another useless troll, like Ball4, Norman, RLH, Nate, Willard, Folkerts, and several others.
You’re dismissed.
Clint R,
Go study some more, or actually start studying.
Maybe one day you will be as competent on AGW theory as Ball4, Norman, RLH, Nate, Willard, and Folkerts.
Tell me when you are willing to argue the finer points, rather than spit out ad-homs.
I won’t hold my breath.
Tell me where the radiating surface of the Sun is, oh righteous one?
It’s a near black-body, and you can use the cite for Wien’s displacement law I gave you.
Let’s see if you actually understand it.
Or you can go all blah, blah, blah about us not being able to tell you where this mysterious radiating surface is.
That’s all you got, is blah, blah, and more blah.
bob,
You’re an idiot of the diversionary type.
Tell me where the “earthern real 255 K measured surface” is, nitwit!
Or don’t you know where it is?
Gong-beater!
Earth’s atmosphere cools with altitude. The emission temperature to space depends on the altitude. Each greenhouse gas has an emission temperature. This corresponds to the altitude at which it’s partial pressure is low enough to radiate to space.t
Looking at the OLR spectrum you can see that in the atmospheric window the emission temperature is that of the surface. Water vapour emits from various altitudes in the upper troposphere and CO2 emits at 220K from the tropopause.
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/
The average emission temperature is…..255K.
Upthread, in one of Norman’s meltdowns, he stated: “When you can grow up a bit and explain what information you want I will provide it.”
I told him what information he should provide: “Another of your links was of the “standard atmosphere”. It showed 4 different altitudes where the temperature is 255K. So which altitude do you choose for your ‘real 255K surface’?”
Norman hasn’t “provided”. Apparently he doesn’t even know enough about the subject to make a wild guess.
So, here’s where we are in the search for Ball4’s mythical “real 255K surface”:
* Ball4 won’t describe it.
* Norman is so confused he rambles from candles to clouds to IR images. He provided a link to the “standard atmosphere”, not realizing it indicates 4 different altitudes with a temperature of 255K.
* bob has stated it is TOA
* Entropic man seems to believe the entire atmosphere is the “real 255K surface”.
This bogus “255K” is one of the “foundations” of the AGW nonsense. It’s amazing that NONE of the cult idiots know what it is, or where it is.
They just “believe”….
Understanding the real earthen 255K measurement or not is one way to separate the cranks from those who have worked to learn the basic physics of climate.
There are not 4 altitudes in the US 1976 standard atm. measured on avg. at 255K in the midlatitude tropics there is only one altitude at that T on avg.; writing as Clint does that there are 4 is another way to know Clint R self identifies as a crank.
We need better cranks.
Okay Braindead4, is that your answer? Are you claiming your midlatitude tropics 255K is the “real 255K surface”?
Is that your final answer?
Or do you need more time to ramble aimlessly?
Having to ask other commenters to explain the real earthen 255K measurement just shows Clint R doesn’t understand the basic physics of climate. Clint should do the work to understand these basic physics so Clint doesn’t have to keep asking others that have already done the work. Spoon feeding Clint R climate physics basics is known NOT to work.
Check out a relevant reliable publication Clint, get to work.
Okay Braindead4, you need more time to ramble aimlessly?
I understand….
I understand Clint R will keep asking others for climate physics answers without having done the work to understand the physics answers on Clint’s own time.
Swenson,
You don’t want to be as dumb as Clint R, do you?
“You’re an idiot of the diversionary type.
Tell me where the “earthern real 255 K measured surface” is, nitwit!
Or don’t you know where it is?
Gong-beater!”
Tell Clint R that there isn’t one.
Or did you think there was one?
Its measured from the Earth’s surface, the Earth’s clouds, and from gases in the Earth’s atmosphere at various elevations.
But wait, you are in the clown car with Clint R already.
No, I’m sorry, earthen real 255K….LOL. B4 believes coining his own terms is science.
Here, Troglodyte:
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/
Weary Wee Willy,
Maybe you should link to something other than a pack of fools who don’t realise that “climate” is just the statistics of past weather.
Is Ball4’s “earthern real 255 K” related to your “Moon Dragon cranks”, or do you both suffer from the same form of mental retardation?
The world wonders.
Mike Flynn,
CERES is not related to Moon Dragon crankery!
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Cheers!
–Did Humans Invent Mathematics, or Is It a Fundamental Part of Existence?–
https://www.sciencealert.com/was-math-always-here-wild-new-paper-puts-spin-on-an-ancient-pythagorean-idea
“Many people think that mathematics is a human invention. To this way of thinking, mathematics is like a language: it may describe real things in the world, but it doesn’t ‘exist’ outside the minds of the people who use it.”
Define, people.
All creatures calculate. A dog can catch a ball. Or dogs don’t randomly catch balls. A dog is equal or exceeds a supercomputer, supercomputer counts. Perfect mathematics, arrives at “answer” quicker. In some respects, it’s likely a dog has better math {in some respects] than Math that humans have so far developed.
Math is useful enough for many purposes.
Anyhow, Mathematics is not done, deal, it’s evolving and I imagine some it has been forgotten {or temporally “lost”}.
“The ancient Pythagoreans agreed with Plato that mathematics describes a world of objects. But, unlike Plato, they didn’t think mathematical objects exist beyond space and time.”
I tend to agree with these ancient Pythagoreans.
When maguff cannot participate in a scientific discussion, because he lacks the scientific understanding to debate science, he resorts to ad homs against the people who do understand science. The ad homs take the form of cherry picked quotes from authority figures, which Maguff does not understand either.
Because Maguff tries to compete, that make him a loser. Grown ups have no need to compete hence cannot be losers.
test 🗿
again…. 😎
once more…
🦁
I will display 🦁
I will display 🦁
maguff…”I am a dues paying member of APS, SPE, SPWLA, AAPG, AIChE, and USCF”.
***
Then why can’t you discuss science without resorting to ad hom attacks, red-herring arguments, and appeals to authority?
C’mon, Gordo. For the nth time, you keep using these words. They do not mean what you make them mean.
FYEO, The Adventures of Fallacy Man:
https://existentialcomics.com/comic/9
Martin
” Since it is proven that the moon does not spin on its axis in relation to the earth…. ”
This has never been the point.
The point to be discussed is:
Does the Moon rotate about its polar axis, independently of the point from which it is observed in space – or does it not?
That our Moon, when observed from Earth, optically seems to show no rotation, due to the wonderful combination of its orbital and rotational motions: that is of such thorough evidence that we don’t need to discuss it at all.
You can deny what Cassini, Newton, Mayer, Lagrange, Laplace and later on hundreds of scientists have understood.
But their computations of Moon’s spin and of the inclination of its polar axis wrt the Ecliptic: that you can’t scientifically contradict.
You deniers are only able to discredit and denigrate their work, or reduce it down to silly, childish toy examples like the merry-go-round or the ball-on-a-string, or to appeal to the authority of an inventer who never obtained any diploma in any university, and whose proof that the Moon does not rotate is of the same vein as the toy examples you all use.
Why can’t you live with the simple fact that Newton had understood what you deny?
Moon does NOT rotate about its axis. This is easily proved by observing the motion of a ball-on-a-string as the ball is swung in a circle. Only one side of the ball faces the inside of its orbit. That is called “orbital motion without axial rotation”. That is the basic motion of Moon.
It is not clear where the false belief of lunar rotation first began, but it likely came from astrology. Cassini advocated the false concept, trying to make a name for himself. The fact that his “Laws” are NOT laws indicates the connection to pseudoscience.
The so-called “computations of Moons spin” are easily debunked, since there is no actual “spin”. The observations are due to “libration”, which is NOT an actual motion. It is only a change in viewing angle due to Moon’s orbit.
Even DREMT writes our moon’s motion is a translation plus axial rotation so Clint R is shown to be wrong that our “Moon does NOT rotate about its axis.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-590393
Here, Ball4, have an even earlier comment:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/lunar-living-9-weird-aspects-of-living-on-the-moon/#comment-364791
Clint R is correct. The moon does not rotate on its own axis. As Tim Folkerts and my stalker agree, the motion of the MOTL can be described as rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
… in an accelerated frame. You are right the first time inertially DREMT: our moon’s motion is a translation plus axial rotation.
No, they never mentioned "in an accelerated frame", Ball4. You’re lying again.
DREMT is correct writing our moon’s motion is a translation plus axial rotation; no need to mention what any others wrote.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-590393
No, our moon’s motion can only be correctly described as a translation plus axial rotation if "orbital motion without axial rotation" is motion like the MOTR. It isn’t. "Orbital motion without axial rotation" is motion like the MOTL. Read through the other comment I linked to.
There was no mention of “if” before when DREMT correctly wrote our moon’s motion is a translation plus axial rotation showing Clint R to be wrong.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/12/uah-global-temperature-update-for-november-2020-0-53-deg-c/#comment-590393
Braindead4, you need to stop perverting reality, and start looking for your lost “real 255K surface”.
It’s not lost Clint R. Nor is it imaginary. Do the work to understand climate basics on your own, that will be better for you.
"There was no mention of “if” before…"
…because I can’t be expected to write out a full and complete explanation of the "Non-Spinner" position in every single comment.
Actually you are expected to do so. You are correct DREMT writing: our moon’s motion is a translation plus axial rotation. Now even Clint R admits our moon is rotating on its own axis to show all sides to the future Webb telescope at the Lagrange point.
More lies from pathetic troll Ball4.
I write just the facts DREMT like Joe Friday wanted; already linked your actual written words and here are Clint R’s written words:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-1028184
Enjoy. Nice to see you both admit in writing our moon’s motion is: “a translation plus axial rotation” since it will be showing all sides to the future Webb telescope.
An object that was rotating about an external axis without rotating about an internal axis would also show all of its sides to Webb.
… in an accelerated frame.
Incorrect. The two descriptions for the MOTL:
a) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
b) Translation plus axial rotation.
transcend reference frames.
No motion transcends reference frames DREMT, all motion is relative, there is no absolute motion.
Nice to see both DREMT and Clint R admit in writing (by links to their words) our moon’s motion is: “a translation plus axial rotation” since Clint admits our moon will be showing all sides to the future Webb telescope at LP2.
The two descriptions for the MOTL transcend reference frames. Sorry that you are too stupid to understand that.
No motion transcends ref. frames but DREMT continues to be correct for our moon’s motion description “translation plus axial rotation” and nice to see Clint R agree in writing our moon motion also includes rotation on its own axis since our moon will be showing all sides to future Webb.
#2
The two descriptions for the MOTL transcend reference frames. Sorry that you are too stupid to understand that.
pups, To define rotation and translation, one must first specify a coordinate system, i.e., a reference frame. You clowns have never done that. Specifying an inertial reference frame is a prerequisite for using Newtonian physics, which pups still can not accept.
You can use the inertial reference frame, no problem. From the inertial reference frame, the two ways you can describe the motion of the MOTL are:
a) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
b) Translation with axial rotation.
pups still refuses to state what coordinate system/reference frame it would select. Not to mention the mathematical problems of “rotating about an external axis” when the radial distance between said center of rotation and the CoM of the Moon changes around the elliptical orbit.
It’s called "orbital motion", Swanson. You’ll get there.
pups wrote: “Youll get there.”. Without specifying a coordinate system to use as a reference, how would you know where “there” is? Your world view is nothing more than a cartoon that’s detached from reality.
Swanson, we know you are ignorant of orbital motion. But to not understand the ball-on-a-string means you are braindead.
And your continuing worship of Willard makes things even worse for you.
OK, Swanson. Place the origin at the main focus of the moon’s orbit and the X Axis along the semi-major axis of the ellipse. Place the Y Axis at 90 degrees RH to the X Axis and lying within the orbit plane. Wrt that coordinate system the moon’s motion can be described as:
a) Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
b) Translation plus axial rotation.
pups claims that that the Moon’s motions can be described as:
Since orbiting is translation, no matter the rate of rotation of the object in orbit, Option “a” is incorrect. And, option “a” ignores the fact that the distance between the first focus on the semi-major axis and the body in orbit changes as the body progresses around the orbit, thus there’s no “rotation” about an external axis, since rotation requires a fixed distance between the CoM and the focus. Assuming that the radial distance for rotation changes around the orbit results in the rate of rotation for the Moon changing as it orbits, which I demonstrated in August, ant that’s an impossible result.
Swanson loses another one:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotation
“If the rotation axis passes internally through the body’s own center of mass, then the body is said to be autorotating or spinning, and the surface intersection of the axis can be called a pole. A rotation around a completely external axis, e.g. the planet Earth around the Sun, is called revolving or orbiting, typically when it is produced by gravity, and the ends of the rotation axis can be called the orbital poles.”
DREMT is correct inertially though in writing our moon’s motion is translation plus axial rotation in accord with wiki so DREMT and even Clint R now agree our moon is rotating on its own axis showing all sides to the future Webb telescope at LP2.
DREMT has yet to learn relativity in that our moon’s rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis is as observed from an accelerated frame.
Boringly wrong, Ball4. Please become desperately, passionately obsessed with someone else.
Correcting the uninformed is a ceaseless opportunity. And yes, inertially our moon’s motion is translation plus axial rotation so DREMT does write that correctly.
Please become desperately, passionately obsessed with someone else.
pups, from your reference:
The Moon is one of those “similar bodies”.
Another WIKI quote from Rotation around a fixed axis :
The Moon’s axis of rotation and it’s orbit both precess, which proves that there’s no fixed external axis.
The Moon rotates once an orbit.
Woops, a bad cut-and-paste. The second one should have been:
..in many fields, particularly astronomy and related fields, revolution, often referred to as orbital revolution for clarity, is used when one body moves around another while rotation is used to mean the movement around an axis.
So your contention is that the Wikipedia article contradicts itself? Have you considered that perhaps you’re just reading it wrong? Nothing you have quoted contradicts the fact that "a rotation around a completely external axis, e.g. the planet Earth around the Sun, is called revolving or orbiting, typically when it is produced by gravity, and the ends of the rotation axis can be called the orbital poles".
For example, with this:
"in many fields, particularly astronomy and related fields, revolution, often referred to as orbital revolution for clarity, is used when one body moves around another while rotation is used to mean the movement around an axis."
a body that is rotating around a completely external axis, e.g. the planet Earth around the Sun, is indeed also a body that is moving around another body. So there is no contradiction between the two quotes.
pups wrote:
Not so fast, troll. The Earth is orbiting, not rotating, around the Sun. And, in case you haven’t noticed, the Earth is also rotating around an internal axis. Orbiting is translational motion.
"The Earth is orbiting, not rotating, around the Sun."
This is a direct quote from the article: "A rotation around a completely external axis, e.g. the planet Earth around the Sun, is called revolving or orbiting"
Orbiting is a rotation, about an external axis. That is what the article says. So yes, the Earth is rotating around the Sun, and this rotation is called an orbit.
"And, in case you haven’t noticed, the Earth is also rotating around an internal axis"
Of course. The Earth is rotating about an external axis, and rotating about an internal axis.
"Orbiting is translational motion"
Not according to the article.
pups continues to ignore reality. From the WIKI article:
Generally, orbits are ellipses and not circles. The Moon’s motions do not exhibit pure rotation around an external axis. The Moon’s CoM follows an elliptical path while it rotates around it’s central axis at a constant angular rate thru the CoM.
pups refuses to accept the other part of my comment, that a rotatinb body which also precesses can’t be described as a rotation around an external axis.
The Moon rotates once an orbit.
Orbiting is around a barycenter, not another object. It is also in an ellipse not a circle.
"A rotation around a completely external axis, e.g. the planet Earth around the Sun, is called revolving or orbiting"
The authors of the article are well aware that the Earth’s orbit around the Sun is elliptical, yet they are happy to describe it as a rotation around an external axis. This should tell Swanson and RLH something.
"pups refuses to accept the other part of my comment, that a rotatinb body which also precesses can’t be described as a rotation around an external axis."
You are conflating an orbital axis with a rotational axis.
The very fact that there is such a thing as "orbital poles" should tell you that "orbiting" is a rotation about an external axis. No rotation, no axis, no poles. You people that argue "orbital motion" is a translation need to reconcile your beliefs with the existence of "orbital poles".
pups your “orbital pole” red herring is just the location in the celestial sphere toward which a vector normal to the orbital plane points. An orbiting body does not “rotate” around some fixed axis which intersects the orbital plane at some definite location, such as the first focus or the mid point of the semi-major axis.
pups continues to ignore the fact that a rotating body which also precesses can’t be described as a rotation around an external axis.
Swanson, go edit the Wikipedia article then. It currently says:
“If the rotation axis passes internally through the body’s own center of mass, then the body is said to be autorotating or spinning, and the surface intersection of the axis can be called a pole. A rotation around a completely external axis, e.g. the planet Earth around the Sun, is called revolving or orbiting, typically when it is produced by gravity, and the ends of the rotation axis can be called the orbital poles.”
DREMT wants us to ignore the VERY FIRST sentence of the article:
“Rotation is the circular movement of an object around an axis of rotation.”
DREMT also wants us to ignore what Madhavi says about rotation:
“Rotation about a Fixed Axis. In this motion, the particles forming the rigid body move in parallel planes along circles centered on the same fixed axis (Fig 1). If this axis, called the axis of rotation, intersects the rigid body. The particles located on the axis have zero velocity and zero acceleration. Rotation should not be confused with certain types of curvilinear translation.”
He wants us to ignore what Brown University says about Rotation:
Brown:
“Rotation about a fixed axis: All particles move in circular paths about the axis of rotation. The motion of the body is completely determined by the angular velocity of the rotation.
General plane motion: Any plane motion that is neither a pure rotation nor a translation falls into this class. However, as we will see below, a general plane motion can always be reduced to the sum of a translation and a rotation.”
Here is another nice one that agrees with the others
http://courses.washington.edu/engr100/me230/week6.pdf
See fig 16-1
Lets remind DREMT how Madhavi and the others define Translation:
“1. Translation : A motion is said to be a translation if any straight line inside the body keeps the same direction during the motion.
and she adds:
It can also be observed that in a translation all the particles forming the body move along parallel paths. If these paths are straight lines. The motion is said to be a rectilinear
translation (Fig 1); If the paths are curved lines, the motion is a Curvilinear Translation.”
So there can be no doubt:
A body keeping a fixed orientation to the stars can only be described as TRANSLATING.
A body travelling on an elliptical orbital path while keeping a fixed orientation to the stars is clearly consistent with the motion described as Curvilinear Translation.
Finally Lets remind DREMT how ORBIT is actually defined by Astronomy and Physics:
“Orbit-
The path in space followed by a celestial body.”
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Glossary/frames.html
A path is simply a series of x,y,z POSITIONS.
Newton’s solution of the 2-body gravity problem finds this PATH thru space.
An ORBIT is not a method of transport!
There is no constraint on rotation rate to follow a path!
Thus all planets are in Orbits regardless of their state of rotation.
“The very fact that there is such a thing as ‘orbital poles’ should tell you that “orbiting” is a rotation about an external axis.”
The Lunar poles are clearly defined by its tilted rotational axis. And the lunar equator, defined by its rotational plane, is tilted 6.8 degrees from its orbital plane.
https://cdn.britannica.com/53/4253-050-771327A7/Earth-each-other-pull-plane-Moon-system.jpg
Notice the Earth’s equator, defining its rotational plane, is tilted 23.5 degrees from its orbital plane, similarly to the Moon’s equator.
DREMT wants us to ignore these observable facts, and pretend that the Moon’s rotation is just its ‘orbital motion’.
Why?
pups continues to ignore the well proven geometry of the Moon’s rotation. The Moon and it’s orbital plane both exhibit precession, which means that the Moon can not be rotating around an external axis. pups has never defined the location of it’s hypothetical “external axis”, only mentioning the “orbital poles” as if that’s what the Moon actually rotates around. Orbiting is not the same as rotating, which is the reason the word “revolving” is used when discussing orbital motion, as in pups’ quote.
pups is hopelessly confused. The Moon rotates once an orbit.
Swanson, you lost the argument at 8:52 AM. Why are you still responding?
“DREMT wants us to ignore these observable facts, and pretend that the Moon’s rotation is just its ‘orbital motion’.
Just like a Flat Earther, looks like he is perfectly fine with ignoring such inconvenient facts.
Luckily the rest of us will not. And science will keep calm and carry on, without him or his teeny, tiny cult.
I would simply note that the Rigid Body Kinematics Lecture notes of Madhavi, Brown, and UW that completely disagree with DREMT are not editable by the general public.
DREMT lost the argument when he simply noted that
“Swanson, go edit the Wikipedia article then. It currently says:”
Well, as there’s no further replies from anyone that I’m currently still responding to, I guess this old argument winner can retire in victory. Smug grin.
Please help this pathetic Dunning-Kruger afflicted child and all those who might become infected by him.
For no more than a dose or two of facts and reality per week, you can prevent the spread of this horrible incurable condition.
Smug grin.
Ha! Ha! Haaah….
Wonderful, Clint R. Very good.
Thanks Braindead-idon.
I enjoy debunking charlatans and phonies.
“Moon does NOT rotate about its axis. This is easily proved by observing the motion of a ball-on-a-string as the ball is swung in a circle.”
Proof by faulty analogy? Nyet.
“Only one side of the ball faces the inside of its orbit. That is called ‘orbital motion without axial rotation’.
Proof by naming? OMG
“That is the basic motion of Moon.”
Proof by declaration? Oy.
Many proofs that Clint doesnt know what proof means.
Thanks for quoting me correctly, Nate. That’s always a good way to learn.
Memorizing helps too.
Clint’s my name, fraud is my game.
binny…”The point to be discussed is:
Does the Moon rotate about its polar axis, independently of the point from which it is observed in space – or does it not?”
***
This is the kind of obfuscation you and your spinner friends have introduced, the discussion is much simpler. The original claim was that the Moon does not rotate on its axis, meaning local axis. It is either rotating about that local axis or it is not. The point of observation has nothing to do with it.
However, since it has been confirmed that the Moon, via observation from Earth, always keeps the same face pointed at Earth that means it cannot possibly rotate on a local axis. The only phenomenon that can explain such motion is translation without rotation.
swannie…”To define rotation and translation, one must first specify a coordinate system, i.e., a reference frame”.
***
So, before we can claim a bicycle wheel is turning we must define a reference frame????
Before we can claim a merry-go-round is rotating, we must define a reference frame???
Before we can observe the night sky apparently moving, or the day Sun apparently moving in the sky, we must define a reference frame????
Strange world you live in, Swannie. I just look at a bicycle wheel and say, “Yep,, it’s rotating”. I guess you need to be an engineer to have that ability.
An engineer-a man who uses physics without understanding it.
An engineer is a man who uses physics to construct machines that other scientists then use.
Gordon,
What if you are standing on the bicycle wheel looking down at it, as it turns?
Do you see it rotating or not?
Gordon, you have realized that rotation is absolute. There is one preferred, non-rotating frame against which all rotations can be measured. We can get by without specifying a frame since we all intuitively know the ‘correct frame’.
We can observe the night sky ‘apparently moving’ and know that the earth is rotating once every 23hr, 56 min.
We could observe the night sky from the moon and similarly know the moon is rotating once every 27.3 days.
“Gordon, you have realized that rotation is absolute. There is one preferred, non-rotating frame against which all rotations can be measured.”
Tim, you are getting dangerously close to reality. Now all you need to do is work out what is rotating about what. For instance, the moon is rotating about the Earth, and not on its own axis. The Earth is rotating about the Sun, and on its own axis. Once you work out the order of things, it’s not so difficult.
“the moon is rotating about the Earth”
The Moon is orbiting about the Earth/Moon barycenter which is in turn orbiting the Sun/Solar system barycenter.
Yep.
Incorrect sir…. the point is that the moon does not spin at all in relation to the Earth … and once one can accept that basic fact… then they need to explain why they think that the mood does spin on it’s axis? how is that working for you?… “it is not spinning on any axis in once situation but some want to believe that it is actually spinning in all other situations” odd indeed.
Yes ..certainly one can make an argument that the moon does get sunlight on a constant basis from the sun (to all sides of the moon)… and that one can also state that any other body in our solar system can see all sides of the Earth’s moon (besides the Earth) …but that is not axil rotation.. that is orbital. this is massively different that axil rotation like the Earth exhibits…and a pendulum shows.
basically it comes down to showing that the moon orbits the earth while both orbit the sun… and if the moon and the Earth were always facing each other (they are not) then both would share the same exact sequencing with day/night….they don’t because one of the two bodies is actually spinning upon an axis…the other is just orbiting and casting the illusion of some type of spin to those that feel the need to believe in spin.
If the moon don’t spin in relation to the Earth…. then it don’t spin in relation to any other point of reference… that is rotation…not spin. get educated
Thanksgiving advice, 2021: How to deal with climate change-denying Uncle Pete
By Richard C. J. Somerville – November 21, 2021
TM, there is no “overwhelming scientific evidence” for your AGW nonsense.
There has been a ~30 year natural warming trend. As Earth warms, the oceans dump more CO2 into the atmosphere. You believe that correlation “proves” CO2 is warming the planet!
You have NOTHING.
> There has been a ~30 year natural warming trend.
Natural variability alone would have made the Earth colder, Pup:
http://climatechangenationalforum.org/your-logic-escapes-me-by-john-nielsen-gammon/
maguff…”For many skeptics or contrarians like Pete, the climate change issue is not a science topic at all”.
***
Well stated, by Sommerville, an uber-climate alarmist who obviously has no idea how science works. ‘Climate change’, as used by alarmists, has nothing to do with observable science based on the scientific method. It is a myth created by unvalidated climate models and consensus, furthered by politicians and the media.
Happy Thanksgiving to all including the posters who annoy me.
Hope the day goes well with you.
That’s nice, Norman. It’s much better than your usual bitter, immature, insults and false accusations.
But you should consider that it’s your cult and cult beliefs that are really what annoys you. With false beliefs and false idols, you’re only destined to be annoyed and frustrated.
Reality is the place to be….
Happy Thanksgiving.
norman…”Happy Thanksgiving to all including the posters who annoy me.
Hope the day goes well with you.”
***
Bah, humbug!!! Please send condolences to the millions of turkeys slaughtered each year to stuff our fat faces.
Austria locks down two million unvaccinated citizens. Austria retains their left-leaning tendencies. Naziism survives.
The UK considering locking down citizens who don’t “booster dose.” You must have three vaccines now to be “fully” vaccinated. Blame the “under-vaccinated.” The left will never stop, folks. Same as with climate change. It will never be enough. There is always going to be a boogeyman. That is how they gain power. Instill fear.
SPA, Perhaps you are intent on getting your virus immunity the old fashioned way by catching the COVID-19. If so, hope you survive.
stephen…”The UK considering locking down citizens who dont booster dose. ”
Have you seen the demented appearance of the UK PM? I call him Boris Hitler.
stephen…”Austria locks down two million unvaccinated citizens. Austria retains their left-leaning tendencies. Naziism survives”.
***
Last I heard they were locking down vaccinated people as well. They thought it was enough to apologize to the vaccinated rather than to the unvaccinated.
Troglodytes prescription against anything, including viruses:
https://youtu.be/hIvRkjOd1f8
How should the Waukesha perpetrator be executed?
Every Murican has the right to self-defense, Troglodyte, and an SUV is clearly self-defense.
W
Happy The Pilgrims Are Hideous Day
To you as well, Pozzo:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oe5_73nogDs
Go bend your sorry leftist knee, Wiltard.
2,54% so far, Troglodyte:
https://www.marketwatch.com/investing/index/DJIA
Hope you closed your positions before that.
In a hopefully near future, James Webb will moor near Lagrange point Nr 2, and after some calibration work, it will start looking at these strange things which are both in space and time so incredibly far away.
But it would be great if a group of scientists specialized in Moon affairs were allowed to use it for a while.
They could for example let James Webb look at the Moon for a few days, and record the observation’s result.
My guess: the lunar spin deniers will, when looking at it, behave exactly like the Flatearthists when they look at Earth pictures made from the Moon or from a space station like Skylab, Saljut1, MIR or ISS, and say:
” That’s all fake! Moon does NOT rotate about its axis! ” .
Good grief.
Braindead-idon, Webb will be OUTSIDE the lunar orbit, so it could see all sides of Moon. It’s the same as watching a runner on an oval track. You would only see one side of him from inside the track, but you would see all sides of him from outside the track.
You really don’t understand any of this. And you can’t learn You’re braindead.
Here 11:25 am Clint R admits our moon is rotating on its own axis to show all sides to future Webb. Now agrees with DREMT writing: our moon’s motion is a translation plus axial rotation
Here 12:24 pm Ball4 admits our moon does not rotate on its own axis to show all sides to future Webb. Now agrees with Tim Folkerts writing: our moon’s motion is a rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis.
… in an accelerated frame.
The two descriptions for the MOTL transcend reference frames. Sorry that you are too stupid to understand that.
No motion transcends ref. frames since all motion is relative but DREMT continues to be correct for our moon’s motion description “translation plus axial rotation” and nice to see Clint R agree in writing our moon motion also includes rotation on its own axis since our moon will be showing all sides to future Webb at LP2.
#2
The two descriptions for the MOTL transcend reference frames. Sorry that you are too stupid to understand that.
Here at 1:15 PM Kiddo is once again wrong.
#3
The two descriptions for the MOTL transcend reference frames. Sorry that you are too stupid to understand that.
The MOTR is for orbital motion (revolution) with out axial rotation as seen from the fixed stars.
False. The MOTL is for “orbital motion without axial rotation” as seen from the fixed stars.
From the fixed stars, i.e. the page that the diagram is on, the MOTL rotates on its axis as can be clearly seen if you isolate just the Moon.
You wish to define MOTL to have no rotation about its central axis but everybody can clearly see that is not the case.
If the MOTL has no rotation how does the sunlight illuminate all of its sides?
Rotation about an external axis (i.e. an orbit or revolution) has no rotation about its axis and is MOTR.
If you understood rotation, you could just as clearly see the MOTL is rotating about an external axis, and not on its own internal axis, from looking at “the page the diagram is on”. The trouble with you “Spinners” is, most of you do not understand rotation, so you cannot see beyond the illusion that the MOTL is rotating on its own axis.
> most of you do not understand rotation
That’s where you’re wrong, Kiddo.
Even Flop had to fold when I gave him the proper definition.
And you are not proficient enough to understand Flop’s trick.
*Automatic Response*
I have put Willard on ignore.
“see the MOTL is rotating about an external axis”
There is no such thing as rotating on an ‘external axis’ unless it is part of a whole thing in which case it is an internal axis of the whole.
There is only orbiting.
You’re so weird and self-contradictory. You literally just said:
"Rotation about an external axis (i.e. an orbit or revolution) has no rotation about its axis and is MOTR."
You think that an "orbit" is rotation about an external axis (which is correct) but you think that rotation about an external axis (with no internal axis rotation) is motion as per the MOTR – which is wrong. Rotation about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis is motion as per the MOTL. Not the MOTR. There are even "Spinners" who agree with me on that. Those same "Spinners" would soon tell you that the motion of the MOTR is "translation in a circle, with no internal axis rotation". Since you don’t know the difference between translation and rotation, I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.
“You think that an “orbit” is rotation about an external axis (which is correct) but you think that rotation about an external axis (with no internal axis rotation) is motion as per the MOTR which is wrong”
Is the Moon orbiting the Sun? Can the Sun see all the sides of the Moon as it is orbiting? Does that mean that it is rotating wrt to the Sun?
Yes in all cases.
Lol, no, the moon is not orbiting the Sun. The moon is orbiting the Earth, whilst the Earth orbits the Sun. Nice way to evade the point being made, though.
The Moon orbits the Earth/Moon barycenter at a much slower rate than they both together orbit the Sun. Therefore the Moon orbits the Sun.
Very funny.
Maybe, but it is also true.
The moon does not orbit the Sun. The moon orbits the Earth, whilst the Earth orbits the Sun.
“The moon does not orbit the Sun.”
Science deniers say the darndest things!
Sorry we already established with Mini-you that if the Earth blew up, the Moon would continue doing what it is now doing, orbiting the sun.
Just a gravity and velocity thing, you wouldnt understand.
#2
The moon does not orbit the Sun. The moon orbits the Earth, whilst the Earth orbits the Sun.
DREMT, DREMT, DREMT. You are wrong about my statements in so many ways!
*IF* the moon were moving in a circle around the earth, then it could be considered to be rotating about about that external axis. But the moon is not moving in a circle, so it is NOT rotating about that external axis.
A MGR horse *IS* moving in a circle around the center of the MGR, so it *CAN* be considered to be rotating around the MGR center.
The moon IS rotating about an axis through the COM of the moon. Draw a line through the COM up through the moon’s axis. Any and all parts of the moon move in a circle around that line. Therefor any and all parts of the moon rotate around that axis.
Similarly, a MGR horse *IS* rotating about the axle supporting the horse. Any and all parts of the horse move in a circle around that line. Therefor any and all parts of the horse rotate around that axis.
Do you have a definition of “rotation” other than “moving in a circle around a stated axis”? If not, you can’t even say what “rotation” means!
Tim, you have stated that the MOTL can be described as rotating about an external axis with no rotation about an internal axis. That is all that matters.
Rotation does not have to occur in a circle. I am bored of arguing about that. Edit the Wikipedia article that states the following:
“A rotation around a completely external axis, e.g. the planet Earth around the Sun, is called revolving or orbiting, typically when it is produced by gravity, and the ends of the rotation axis can be called the orbital poles.”
if you disagree with it. Last I was aware the Earth’s orbit around the Sun was elliptical. They use it as an example of rotation around a completely external axis. Stop arguing with me, start arguing with Wikipedia.
“MOTL can be described as rotating about an external axis “
Yes. It can also be described as rotating about many other axes.
“Rotation does not have to occur in a circle. ”
Yes, it does. That is how rotation is always defined in physics, math, and engineering.
“Edit the Wikipedia article … “
Don’t use Wikipedia as a primary source! Find an actual textbook that agrees with you. Better yet, find an actual textbook that says the moon is not rotating on its own axis once every 27.3 days.
“It can also be described as rotating about many other axes.”
False.
“Yes, it does. That is how rotation is always defined in physics, math, and engineering.”
1) Then why are there multiple sources defining “revolution/orbit” as a “rotation about an external axis” when most orbits are elliptical?
2) In real life there are no perfect circles so for the definition to have any practical application it must also apply to ellipses.
3) Desmos can be programmed to rotate an object about an external axis in an elliptical pattern. If you don’t want to call that movement “rotation” then call it something else (“revolution”, perhaps) but it is still one single motion, in which the object keeps one face oriented towards the inside of the orbit, and it naturally produces libration.
Wikipedia is great source for laypeople or for general background information, but it is a TERRIBLE source for anything precise or technical.
But even using your terrible source, we find:
“Rotation is the circular movement of an object around an axis of rotation. A three-dimensional object may have an infinite number of rotation axes.”
That is the first line. The primary definition. The fundamental description.
YOUR source says rotation is circular.
YOUR source says rotation can occur about about infinite number of rotation axes, not just one.
Your source also links to a page on “orbits” which contradicts the page on rotations. An orbit like the earth or moon is only APPROXIMATELY a rotation in the mathematical sense. (this is one great example of why NOT to rely on wikipedia!)
I repeat my previous comment, as you have not addressed a single thing I have written in it.
Yes Wikipedia, where ‘truth’ can be edited, by anyone.
“In real life there are no perfect circles so for the definition to have any practical application it must also apply to ellipses.”
And it must also apply to squares? hexagons?
Sounds like Geometry cannot be applied in the real world!
And really? Madhavi teaches Kinematics to Engineers but it is not meant to apply to the real world? Where does she state this?
“3) Desmos can be programmed’
I discussed the DESMOS sim at length with FTOP.
It is clear that to achieve a Moon-like orbit requires TWO independent motions, 1. a Keplerian orbit and 2. a simple rotation. They are not ONE motion.
I found a flaw in the demo, that angular steps should not be uniform in time for the Kepler orbit.
Well, that’s a shame. I was waiting for a response from Tim, but my stalker that I no longer respond to has shown up and written out his usual mix of straw men and arguments by assertion, safe in the knowledge that I cannot respond to it. Now that means Tim might not bother to reply! What’s an argument winner to do!?
Folkerts, if you’re still confused about what rotation is, stick your hand in a large floor fan. Even the braindead can learn from pain.
” I no longer respond to has shown up and written out his usual mix of straw men and arguments by assertion, safe in the knowledge that I cannot respond to it.”
Except I just did! Ha!
Lets face it, DREMT only responds when he thinks he has good answers, which is almost never!
It is a very convenient ruse to evade inconvenient facts.
Troll Nate, Moon only has ONE motion. What is confusing you is that Moon has TWO vectors. It is the resultant of the two vectors that create the ONE motion.
You won’t understand because you’re braindead.
My stalker is so delusional, and so desperate to communicate with me, that he seems to believe anything I say is a response to him personally. He doesn’t understand the difference between someone talking about him, and someone talking to him.
DREMT doesn’t understand the difference between someone talking ABOUT the errors, distortions, and outright lies in his posts, as I do, and someone talking to him.
In any case it never really about truth with him, it is all just word games.
“Moon only has ONE motion. What is confusing you is that Moon has TWO vectors. It is the resultant of the two vectors that create the ONE motion.”
Well, then why does the demo and the math require TWO separate motions to mimic the Moon’s motion?
But, lets face it, facts like this just dont matter when you can just declare your own ‘truth’.
A computer simulation requires correct programming and correct input to provide a correct output.
Clint, as far as Ftop_t is concerned (the person who actually programmed the demo) the moon’s movement is recreated with only one motion. He tried to explain it all to my stalker, but it fell on deaf ears, as usual.
DREMT, you and Ftop-t have more patience than I do.
I just regard Nate as another worthless troll.
“A computer simulation requires correct programming and correct input to provide a correct output.”
I couldnt agree more! Please tell that to FTOP!
OTOH, math is math and can be understood by anyone with basic math literacy. You?
“He tried to explain it all to my stalker, but it fell on deaf ears, as usual.”
As usual, DREMT doesnt actually understand the math, the programming, or the discussion about it, but he is happy to appeal to the authority of any anonymous poster who seems to agree with him!
“I just regard Nate as another worthless troll.”
Yes, Clint, I stopped responding to him a couple of years ago. Ever since then he has followed me around from thread to thread, leaving personal remarks and insults, false accusations and misrepresentations. The usual.
Sorry: you are the one who doesn’t (want to) understand.
Viewed from LP2, you will see that Moon rotates.
But even if ten astronomers would patiently explain to you what you see and why you see from there what is hidden on Earth due to the mix of Moon’s orbiting and rotation about axes with different inclinations, you will say:
” Moon does NOT rotate about its axis! ”
You can insult me with your stubborn ‘braindead’ as long as you want, Clint R.
Doesn’t matter.
Braindead-idon believes the track runner is rotating as he runs the oval track!
That’s why he’s a cult idiot. And he can’t learn reality. That makes him braindead.
Look at
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-1029546
I’m not quite satisfied with the current snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere:
https://i.postimg.cc/g0RnVFkZ/Rutgers-Snow-Cover-Season-weeks-241121.png
I hope La Nina will soon start really working, in the hope that then children near Berlin finally can enjoy a white Xmas again!
Wot La Nina ???
https://i.postimg.cc/Ls15FT07/Baghdadidon.jpg
Each of your comments is a bit dumber than the previous one.
In short you’ll reach the level of Clint R talking about lunar spin.
Yes we know you have the best forecast and we are all stupid
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-1024913
No, not ‘all’, Eben.
Some, like you.
A nice corner: UAH 6.0 LT above NINO3+4
https://i.postimg.cc/wTn0zjkN/UAH-6-0-LT-nino3-4.png
The sharp peaks and drops aren’t due to the region’s temperatures, it’s because the region is very small (40 2.5 degree grid cells, i.e. 2 % of the Tropics).
The peaks in 1987 and 2010 look a lot bigger than the so-called ‘Super El Nino’s in 1998 and 1016, dunno why.
ENSO es muy complicado.
Let’s have a look now to the planet simple blackbody equation Te:
πrS*(1-a) = 4πrσTe⁴ (W)
Let’s look close to it:
On the left side there is the SW not reflected portion of the incident solar flux’s energy in TOTAL in Watts.
πr*S*(1-a) (W)
On the right side there is the LW radiative energy a planet radiates over its entire surface area in TOTAL in Watts.
4πrσTe⁴ (W)
This two amounts of energy (the SW incident and the LW emitted) are equal only energetically-wise, both amounts are expressed in Watts, so we can write the equation:
energy in = energy out
πr*S*(1-a) = 4πrσTe⁴ (W)
and, solving for Te we obtain:
Te = [ (1-a) S /4σ ]∕ ⁴
Thus, what we do is to solve algebraic equation.
There is not any spherical correction factor four (4) in the first place.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Christos, note the 4 in the eqn.
binny…”Viewed from LP2, you will see that Moon rotates”.
***
That’s not due to rotation about a local axis, it’s due to a change in orientation of the lit face. The change in orientation is caused by translation without local rotation.
I have explained it in detail but obviously you don’t understand basic calculus.
Robertson
” I have explained it in detail but obviously you dont understand basic calculus. ”
You did not calculate anything on this blog.
*
You are and keep exactly as dumb as Clint R.
When the Moon runs on its elliptic orbit and rotates, the same point on the Moon does not move, viewed from LP2, as when it would not rotate.
Knowing the orbital speed and the axes of orbiting and rotation wrt to LP2, it is easy to compute the difference.
Btw: when LRO orbits the Moon, why does an obect at Moon’s surface not appear at the same longitude wrt LRO when it is at the same selenocentric latitude again?
That is all so easy to understand – except for arrogant and stubborn ignoramuses like you.
Bindidon, you just keep relying on your cult beliefs. You don’t understand any of the science. The accepted model for basic orbital motion is the ball-on-a-string. Once you understand that, your “lunar rotation” belief goes away.
So, to hold on to your false beliefs, you must reject the ball-on-a-string. But, when you reject a workable model, you must replace it. But, the only replacement you have does not hold up to vector analysis. It doesn’t work.
IOW, you have NOTHING!
“The accepted model for basic orbital motion is the ball-on-a-string”
No it isn’t by any reputable scientist.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2021-0-20-deg-c/#comment-781680
You can repeat your idiocies all you like, you are wrong as usual.
gbaikie…quote from your link…”But the Pythagorean school of thought in ancient Greece held a different view. Its proponents believed reality is fundamentally mathematical”.
***
Can you see the problem here, belief has nothing to do with science or reality? In other words, if you took every human off the Earth, would mathematics exist as a physical reality?
Even those who insist there is a mathematical relationship between certain natural phenomena cannot claim it is mathematical. Their relationship came after the fact, mathematical theory was developed first then a mathematical relationship was observed.
Mathematics is part of the human mind. For example, the circle. Somewhere along the line, someone noticed that the radius of a circle fit onto the circumference 6.283185307179586476925286766559 times. Humans defined half that amount as pi = 3.1415926535897932384626433832795.
There is nothing magical in the relationship.
We humans invented the real number system. If you had a load of apples and you were putting them one at a time into a basket, and wanted to count them, you use the real number system. Do you think the ancient cavemen who likely kept count by notching a piece of wood were using mathematics?
I would agree it’s a form of counting but hardly mathematics. We had to systematically develop the theories and theorems that make up mathematics first.
“Can you see the problem here, belief has nothing to do with science or reality? In other words, if you took every human off the Earth, would mathematics exist as a physical reality?”
You have removed humans, but have you also removed God?
I don’t think that God is a human invention- as that would seem make me an atheist, ie that deluded humans invented God.
I do think {obviously} that humans do have crazy ideas regarding God.
But I am not too concerned about whatever crazy ideas they may or may not have, as long they are happy about it.
Think of belief in God from an evolutionary viewpoint.
Belief in divine right of kings cuts down on infighting. Belief in a heavenly reward makes the tribe easier to control and men more willing to die fighting for the tribe.
Tribes which believe in God have an edge over tribes which do not, so an inclination to believe in Gods gives a reproductive advantage and gets bred into the brain.
Note that the edge comes from the belief. You don’t actually need the God.
In what section of history of humankind did the “belief in divine right of kings cuts down on infighting” actually happen?
Projectile weapons:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4010415/
Nice one, Willard
I’ve seen the evolutionary benefits of human cooperation discussed, but that’s the first time I’ve seen it quantified.
I note that it works within a community such as a tribe, but not between competing tribes.
Regarding kings, the fights over kingship tend to be when sons fight over inheritance or two different groups are competing for it.
In the War of the Roses three groups competed for the kingship, Lancaster, York and Tudor. Last man standing was Henry Tudor, later Henry VII.
One of Henry’s titles was Henry Grace a Dieu (Henry by the Grace of God). That indicates that Henry Tudor won the kingship on the battlefield and God chose him instead of Richard of York.
1. Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature calculation
Tmean.earth
So = 1.361 W/m² (So is the Solar constant)
S (W/m²) is the planet’s solar flux. For Earth S = So
Earth’s albedo: aearth = 0,306
Earth is a smooth rocky planet, Earth’s surface solar irradiation accepting factor Φearth = 0,47
(Accepted by a Smooth Hemisphere with radius r sunlight is S*Φ*π*r²(1-a), where Φ = 0,47)
β = 150 days*gr*oC/rotation*cal – is a Rotating Planet Surface Solar Irradiation Absorbing-Emitting Universal Law constant
N = 1 rotation /per day, is Earth’s axial spin
cp.earth = 1 cal/gr*oC, it is because Earth has a vast ocean. Generally speaking almost the whole Earth’s surface is wet. We can call Earth a Planet Ocean.
σ = 5,67*10⁻⁸ W/m²K⁴, the Stefan-Boltzmann constant
Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
The planet mean surface temperature equation
produces remarkable results.
The calculated planets temperatures are almost identical with the measured by satellites.
Planet…Te…Te.correct..Tmean..Tsat.mean
Mercury..439,6K…364K….325,83K…340K
Earth….255K…..210K….287,74….288K
Moon…..270,4Κ…224K….223,35Κ…220Κ
Mars…..209,91K..174K….213,21K…210K
The 288 K – 255 K = 33 oC difference does not exist in the real world.
There is NO +33°C greenhouse enhancement on the Earth’s mean surface temperature.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“There is NO +33°C greenhouse enhancement on the Earths mean surface temperature. ”
Which leaves a problem.
After accounting for albedo Earth abs*orbs 240W/m^2 from spaceand emits 239W/m^2 to space, almost in balance.
Use the SB equation to calculate the emission temperature. Earth has emissivity 0.93 and 239W/m^ corresponds to an emission temperature of 255K.
The Earth’s surface temperature averages 288K. It should, according to the SB equation, be emitting 398W/m^2W/m^2.
What is producing the 33C extra warming?
How can Earth”s surface emit 398/W/m^2 while the satellites only detect 239W/m^2?
Where did the extra 159W/m^2 come from and where does it go?
Ent, the problem comes from comparing Earth’s REAL temperature to an IMAGINARY sphere.
That gives bogus results.
Your cult is in denial. Ball4 claims there is a “real 255K surface”, but he can’t identify it. The 288K is real, but the 255K is imaginary. That makes the 33K also imaginary.
That’s the “problem”.
Isn’t that how science works? You test a hypothesis by calculating what the world would be like and then comparing calculation with reality.
The physics of the greenhouse effect predicts two alternative Earth surface temperatures.
No greenhouse effect-255K
Greenhouse effect-288K
Observation gives a surface temperature of 288K, which agrees with the presence of a greenhouse effect.
No, that’s how “perversion of science” works.
In REAL science, when the calculation from the imaginary sphere does not match reality, you throw it away and find something that works.
The GHE does not match reality. (See the example using strawberries.)
Show me this ” real science” which explains how the Earth’s surface emits 398 W/m^ (159W/m^2 more than it receives from space) while the satellites only detect 239 W/m^2.
The “239 W/m^2” is another problem, Ent. One issue at a time.
Do you now understand the “33K” is nonsense?
“The 239 W/m^2 is another problem, Ent. One issue at a time. ”
Nope, it’s all part of the same problem. I await your explanation of the 33C difference between the 255K emission temperature measured by satellites and the 288C surface temperature measured by thermometers.
Clint R hasn’t yet understood the earthen instrumental 255K measurement is real not imaginary so there is no way Clint can accurately write out that requested explanation.
Tse – Te = 288K – 255K = 33K is instrumentally measured so is real.
Christos needs to include his ignored earthen atm. IR opacity so that his calculations in comments accurately compute the measured earthen GHE of about 33K.
“I await your explanation of the 33C difference between the 255K emission temperature measured by satellites…”
THAT is part of the problem, Ent. There is NO measurement of the “255K”. There are only “snapshots”, estimates, assumptions, and modeling.
That ain’t science.
Clint R admits Clint has yet to do the basic climate physics work to find and understand the measured 255K data.
Clint R
I linked you to this measured emission spectrum.
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/
From the area under the curve you calculate the total flux.
From the total flux you use the SB equation to calculate the emission temperature.
Not ” snapshots, estimates, assumptions, and modeling. ”
Just physics.
Ent, you don’t understand your link. (Seems to be a common problem….)
You can’t have one measurement of one area, and claim it fits the entire globe.
Pup,
Your spamming of REAL, SCIENCE, CULT
only shows one thing.
You got NOTHING.
Do the Pole Dance Experiment.
I know I’m effective when trolls start slinging their nonsense. Thanks for the affirmation, Ball4 and Willard.
Ent, this is from the link you don’t undertand: ”The MODTRAN model simulates the emission and absor.ption of infrared radiation in the atmosphere. The smooth curves are theoretical emission spectra of blackbodies at different temperatures.”
MODTRAN is a MODEL, Pup:
https://climateball.net/but-modulz/
You should do the POLL Dance Experiment.
Entropic man
“Which leaves a problem.
After accounting for albedo Earth abs*orbs 240W/m^2 from space and emits 239W/m^2 to space, almost in balance.
Use the SB equation to calculate the emission temperature. Earth has emissivity 0.93 and 239W/m^2 corresponds to an emission temperature of 255K.
The Earth’s surface temperature averages 288K. It should, according to the SB equation, be emitting 398W/m^2W/m^2.
What is producing the 33C extra warming?
How can Earth”s surface emit 398/W/m^2 while the satellites only detect 239W/m^2?
Where did the extra 159W/m^2 come from and where does it go?”
Earth’s Without-Atmosphere Mean Surface Temperature Equation Tmean.earth is:
Tmean.earth= [ Φ (1-a) So (β*N*cp)¹∕ ⁴ /4σ ]¹∕ ⁴
Tmean.earth = 287,74 Κ
The New equation calculates Earth without-atmosphere mean surface temperature, along with every planet and moon without-atmosphere (Earth and Titan included) in the solar system.
The New equation considers every planetary surface infinitesimal spot s on the every infinitesimal instant developed radiative temperature as infinitesimal blackbody Stefan-Boltzmann emission law behavior.
The entire planet surface is considered as a summary of those instant blackbody infinitesimal spots.
A surface consisted from many blackbodies cannot be considered as a blackbody itself!
Thus, there is not any problem, Earth is not a blackbody… and, therefore, Earth does not emit as a blackbody at 288 K.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“A surface consisted from many blackbodies cannot be considered as a blackbody itself! ”
You’re getting as bad as Clint R with his ridiculous idea that fluxes can’t add!
“Thus, there is not any problem, Earth is not a blackbody and, therefore, Earth does not emit as a blackbody at 288 K. ”
Real objects are not black bodies, they are grey bodies which abs*orb and emit only a fraction of the absor*btion and emission of an ideal black body.
The SB equation for real objects takes account of this. The emissivity e is the fraction of ideal black body radiation absorbed or emitted by a real grey body.
For example, the emissivity of Earth averages 0.93. The satellite measurement of 239W/m^2 indicate a black body temperature of 274K or a grey body temperature of 255K.
Ent’s attempted slur, “You’re getting as bad as Clint R with his ridiculous idea that fluxes can’t add!”
Ent, can we then put you in with the losers that believe ice cubes can boil water?
Water boils in a vacuum at any temperature.
Entropic man
“The SB equation for real objects takes account of this. The emissivity e is the fraction of ideal black body radiation absorbed or emitted by a real grey body.”
A Planet is not “The SB equation for real objects takes account of this.”
SB equation cannot be applied to a planet as a whole.
What I do is applying the SB equation to every infinitesimal spot at the very instant and to integrate over the entire planetary surface.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“SB equation cannot be applied to a planet as a whole.”
Sure it can Christos; 255K is the equivalent blackbody temperature an observer on our moon would read from an IR thermometer pointed at Earth.
On Earth, the sun is equivalent to ~6000 K near blackbody radiation (based on the earthen solar irradiance), likewise an observer on the moon would measure that Earth is equivalent to 255 K near blackbody radiation based on the terrestrial irradiance. Note that the earthen effective temperature Te in no (direct) way depends on the emissive properties of Earth’s atmosphere.
Earth is REAL and non-homogeneous, as opposed to an IMAGINARY sphere.
Earth cannot be treated as an imaginary sphere, unless you’re wanting to pervert reality.
Ball4
On Earth, the sun is equivalent to ~6000 K near blackbody radiation (based on the earthen solar irradiance), likewise an observer on the moon would measure that Earth is equivalent to 255 K near blackbody radiation based on the terrestrial irradiance.
Sun is a sphere with uniform surface temperature and uniform emission intensity due to sun*s inner source of energy.
What an observer on our moon would read from an IR thermometer pointed at Earth?
Earth appears from the visible side of moon as a planet hanging at the same always point above the horizon. As moon orbits Earth, there are phases of Earth observed. Thus, Earth has not a uniform surface temperature which could be measured from moon.
The earthshine visible and measurable from moon is the earth-solar flux diffuse reflection from the earth surface. It does not account for the earth-solar flux specular reflection. It does not account for the earth*s IR emission.
And it does not measure anything when the earth is dark.
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
“Earth has not a uniform surface temperature which could be measured from moon.”
Christos, the earthen avg. surface T 288K is measured over time and space by thermometer, not measured from moon. The Te of real Earth is measured by earthen satellite radiometer, and from the moon, over time at 255K.
Earth is not dark, the sun is a continuous source of illumination.
Ball4’s Fantasyland: “The Te of real Earth is measured by earthen satellite radiometer, and from the moon, over time at 255K.”
Clint writes earthshine is a fantasy, Christos, I’ll let you inform Clint of the reality of earthshine – Clint quite obviously sadly lacks any informed study in the field of climate.
Are Viruses Alive? or are they lifeless packages of protein and nucleic acid?
Define alive.
When I was young, life was defined by what it did- nutrition, excretion, movement, reproduction, sensitivity, growth and homeostasis.
Then it was defined by negative entropy, maintaining a high level of organisation by reducing the level of organisation of its surroundings.
NASA defines life as “a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution”
Viruses only meet three of the old criteria. They certainly show negative entropy and Darwinian evolution, meeting the modern definitions of life.
I think of them as parasites. Parasites evolve simplicity, relying on their hosts to carry out life processes they once did for themselves.
I see viruses as cells which have shed most cellular processes. All that remains are the genetic information and a delivery system. They rely on their host cells to provide all the machinery for viral reproduction.
Not unlike Sky and Moon Dragon cranks, when you think about it.
The problem with NASA’s definition is that a mule (a sterile hybrid) for example, is incapable of Darwinian evolution and would thus be considered non-living.
I think you’ve just pushed a general definition further than it was intended to go, though you might regard a mule as an unsuccessful example of evolution.
I don’t think NASA’s definition is intended for apply to individuals. It would certainly apply to non-reproducing members of A colonial species. A worker bee is incapable of reproduction but certainly contributes to the success of the colony whose genes she carries.
FWIW, if we still have problems with concepts such as table and chair, chances are that life will be a tough nut to crack:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/life/
Heart Risk Increase due to Vaccines https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circ.144.suppl_1.10712
Death risk increases without a vaccine.
How does the increased risk of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following vaccination compare with the increased risk ofobservations of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following Covid-19?
The question is not whether the vaccine increases your risk, all vaccines do that.
The question is whether the risk of vaccination is smaller or larger than the risk from the disease you are vaccinating against.
For example, if you are bitten by a potentially rabid animal you are given a protective vaccine.
The side effects of the vaccine can be ferocious, but better than dying of rabies.
My age cohort has 99.43% survival on being infected with COVID.
I am not aware of the risk of linger issues once recovered.
What? Me? Worry?
I am more impressed by the idea of heart failure risk going up from 11% to 25% over the next 5 years due to taking a vaccine.
[KENNUI] What? Me? Worry?
[ALSO KENNUI] I am more impressed
Ken says
I am not aware of the risk of linger issues once recovered.
Ken,
You are probably correct in not worrying. Not sure of lingering issues, but, there was a study recently released that analyzed hospitalization with covid-like symptoms. I don’t have the link but title/source is below. In table 2 of the study you will find that of their sample, about 18,000 hospitalizations were from the fully vaccinated and about 2,000 were covid19 survivors. Normalizing to the general population you would be 6 times more likely to be hospitalized being fully vaccinated. The authors admit to the problems of the study, but their conclusion is that you will more likely to have covid19 again if you already had covid19 vs fully vaccinated.
Personally, I would recommend investigating why there were so many more hospitalizations among the fully vaccinated vs the survivors. If you are in a low risk group for complications from Covid19, the data suggests you would be worse off with the MRNA vaccines.
With that said, if you are a high risk (commodities) you would most likely be better off with the vaccines.
Laboratory-Confirmed COVID-19 Among Adults Hospitalized with
COVID-19–Like Illness with Infection-Induced or mRNA Vaccine-Induced SARS-CoV-2 Immunity — Nine States, January–September 2021
MMWR / November 5, 2021 / Vol. 70 / No. 44
These people should take a course in writing English essays/reports. Have none of them heard of paragraphs?
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34735425/
Some people need a course in how to be concise and brief, instead of excessively obscure and verbose in their pointless maunderings.
Planet Germany is heating up, just as Blabber-dong predicted
https://i.postimg.cc/zfb9F3yW/26nov21-eu15t.png
entropic…” The question is not whether the vaccine increases your risk, all vaccines do that.
The question is whether the risk of vaccination is smaller or larger than the risk from the disease you are vaccinating against”.
***
We need to re-evaluate vaccines. The current theory is old and based on a lack of understanding of bacteria and viruses. The amount of other ingredients used in traditional vaccines, like mercury, is shocking. The claims that such ingredients has caused problem in children like autism, if true, is unforgivable.
The US CD-C were granted a large amount of money to research a possible link between vaccines and autism and the money was stolen by a researcher who is still at large. Corruption is strongly linked to the CD-C with an inferred link between them and pharmaceutical companies. A former head of the CD-C was forced to resign and she was immediately hired by a pharmaceutical company.
Besides, the vaccine for covid is not a vaccine, by definition. A vaccine is supposed to take cells from a infectious agent and introduce them to the immune system so it can remember the agent and resist it in future. The current covid vaccine is using RNA ‘INFERRED’ to be from a virus. No one has ever proved that to be true therefore the powers that be are injecting an unknown substance into the body and they have no idea what it can do.
The material injected will be rejected by normal cells so the material has been modified so it will fool the cells into accepting it. The ramifications of such a practice are cell death and mutation, very serious situations.
However, one of the worst fears is that the RNA used in the vaccines represents normal functions in the body, like being run down, disease, the common flu, etc. Therefore, the covid vaccines could be teaching the body to reject normal function, which leads to autoimmune disease.
Hmmmmh!
StormVistaWxModels.com…
Typical Coolista.
When models show warming, they are always wrong.
But when they show cooling down, the Coolistas are happy and welcome the models with a kiss.
Eben, you are ‘plain right’:
https://tinyurl.com/yxs43zum
When I look at
https://www.stormvistawxmodels.com/
I think you are really ‘plain gullible’ too.
Gute Nacht…
binny…what’s the difference between ‘gute nacht’ and ‘guten nacht’?
Isn’t it a strange coincidence that every climate expert in here is also expert virologist
https://i.postimg.cc/TPZYVpc5/unwaxed.png
In general, many of us ‘climate experts’ tend to be of a more scientific bent (trolls excepted) and more willing to read up on science than your average pleb.
We’re already more aware than most that the climate change claptrap has exactly the same hallmarks of ‘extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds’ as is evident in the COVID responses. We’re already lacking much confidence in the political agenda in the climate change narrative and the COVID narrative as having any beneficial outcomes.
So not really a strange coincidence.
entropic…”Isn’t it a strange coincidence that every climate expert in here is also expert virologist…”
***
Some of us can actually read and comprehend. All I see from climate alarmists is appeals to authority, ad hom attacks, patronizing inferences, and insults.
Let’s face it, scientists who oppose the notion of catastrophic global warming/climate change have arguments based on actual science. Climate alarmists, on the other hand, have no actual science to back them.
Virology is not rocket science, the scientists pushing the current covid nonsense have no science to back them. You don’t need a degree in virology to see the inconsistencies in the current paradigm.
The basis of covid tests is consensus, not science. the science tells us the current covid RNA-PCR test cannot detect a virus or an infection. The inventor of the PCR method is on record as claiming that.
We are being fed pseudo-science re covid. Covid theory is based on HIV theory and it is a hodge-podge theory based on inference. When Dr. Luc Montagnier, credited with discovering HIV (he admitted only to inferring the virus), tried to find HIV on an electron microscope, he admitted he saw no virus.
Why did he not stop there???? If he could see no virus on the EM, there obviously was no virus present!!! However, Montagnier insisted on trying to find a virus by applying retroviral theory which was ten years old when he applied it.
In other words, Montagnier presumed HIV was a retrovirus and went about finding evidence to support that theory. His eventual method, which is currently used to identify covid, is an inferred method supported only by consensus.
Two years after the discovery of ‘something’ that has been killing a tiny proportion of 1% of any population, we are still dealing with lockdowns. The justification for continuing this pseudo-science are variants, imaginary viruses conjured on unvalidated computer models.
That’s right, no one has physically-isolated a variant, they are all products of unvalidated models.
In 40 years, no one has found a vaccine for HIV, yet they found one for covid in 3 months. Of course, the leading vaccine producer, Pfizer, has been fined close to 5 billion dollars over the years for lying about their products. It seems there is collusion between the US FDA and the US CD-C and companies like Pfizer.
After pushing to make the vaccines mandatory, and trying to shame the unvaccinated into getting vaccinated, the CD-C has admitted that thousands of vaccinated people are testing positive, becoming infected, being hospitalized, and even dying. They have gone so far as to suppress the actual number by failing to report the vaccinated who suffer more than a light infection.
You could figure all this out for yourself if you were not hung up on appeals to authority. When someone like me puts in the time to do his own research, you dismiss it because it does not meet the bs produced by your authority figures. And here we are, two years after covid was declared, still talking lockdowns.
Have you no guts at all? Start asking questions.
sorry Entropic, confused you with Eben…again!!!
” Isnt it a strange coincidence that every climate expert in here is also expert virologist ”
*
I suppose Eben means Robertson, doesn’t he?
This “real 255K surface” is a BIG deal. Ball4 claims he knows where it is, but can’t describe it. Norman, bobdroege, Entropic man, Willard, and maybe one or two others that I missed, have chimed in trying to protect Ball4’s nonsense. But NONE has been able to identify Ball4’s “real 255K surface”.
The reason is, it does NOT exist! The braindead cult idiots do not even know their own cult nonsense.
No wonder this is so much fun.
> This “real 255K surface” is a BIG deal.
Not really, Pup.
Only because you got NOTHING that you say that.
Clint R
I do not know if you are intentionally trolling (I think it is highly likely). You sound like you are posting just to get reactions. You are not interested in the lease with evidence or proof of any type.
I have repeatedly told you it is a radiating surface and it is real. I do not claim it has a specific point in the atmosphere, it is the sum of all the streams of longwave radiant energy leaving the Earth system and is detectable by satellite.
I know you want me to insult you. I certainly should but it is also pointless. You just cry about it anyway.
A radiating surface does exist just as it does in a flame. Where Christos pointed out that a candle flame is mostly caused by hot carbon embers, the blue flame of a gas oven is from hot gas emitting and it has a real surface and real temperature yet it is a gas and the light emanates from within the flame. The surface is the edges where radiant energy is no longer produced.
I suggest you look at flame and then say a flame radiant surface does not exist. I am not even certain why you go on and on about this issue. Many have explained it to you in depth. You ignore the explanation and a few posts later act as if you have not been told anything by anyone. Why do you need to behave in such a troll fashion? What does being a troll get you?
Norman starts with “I do not know…”
I agree. Norman doesn’t know. He doesn’t know where his cult hero’s “real 255K surface” is.
Consequently, as usual, he’s got NOTHING (except his worthless opinions, false accusations, and insults).
Clint R
I have already told you where the Earth’s radiative surface is. It is the sum of longwave radiation leaving the Earth. I told you it is not one solid surface. You are not able to grasp what a radiating surface is. Not my problem.
I will ask you. Does a flame have a surface? Yes or no. If yes what is it, if no the same?
To help here is an image you can use to answer the question.
https://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium-large/propane-gas-flame-from-a-bunsen-burner-david-parker.jpg
Does this flame have a surface? Does it have a temperature?
Gordon Robertson. Since you defend Clint R, read what I asked and see his response. You will witness a troll. He will not give and answer to the questions. He will not commit. Just watch and read and tell my his behavior on this blog is rational scientific debate.
Norman, Ball4 claimed there is a “real 255K surface”. If you’re now admitting your cult hero is wrong, I accept that.
“the sum of longwave radiation leaving the Earth. ”
Is not a surface.
“I told you it is not one solid surface.”
Could be ice particles at 255 K?
Clint R
Ball4 is not my “cult hero”. Nor do I admit I am wrong. I have stated the same thing many times.
The radiating surface is emitting around 240 W/m^2 which gives a brightness temperature of 255 K.
The Earth temperature from Space as actually measured comes out around 255 K while the surface measures around 288 K. I do not dispute this at all and have provided you numerous evidence that this is indeed the case. Your rejection of evidence does not make me wrong. It just means you reject evidence that goes against your opinions.
This is not science, it is just what you do. Not sure why you do it. I cannot understand your motivation. It is not science that is for sure. Whatever it may be only you seem to know.
Norman, even your imaginary sphere has an identifiable “surface”. Ball4 claims Earth has a “real 255K surface”. But neither of you can identify where it is. If you believe it is in the atmosphere, what is its altitude. The 255K is crucial to the AGW nonsense, yet none of you braindead cult idiots knows where it is.
And “braindead cult idiot” is NOT an insult. It’s reality. You religiously adhere to your cult’s dogma, disregarding reality. That means you’re an “idiot”. You can’t learn — that means you’re “braindead”. The “cult” comes from the fact that you all support each other. If I say anything, you call me a “troll”. But if one of your cult heroes says the same thing, then you applaud him.
Gordon Robertson
Read Clint R’s response to mine and please explain a scientific response. I clearly pointed out to him what I mean by radiating surface. I gave him other examples of surfaces that are not solid but have properties of a surface (a cloud and fire).
A cloud has a reflective surface. All the reflected light does not come from any one depth (which would be comparable to altitude with atmosphere) but the surface is the difference where reflected light comes from and where it does not, an edge. The reflected light of a cloud has structure and can be seen.
I have provided Clint R with evidence of an average of 240 W/m^2 longwave radiant energy leaving Earth system to space. His response to the evidence is a meaningless claim that I do not understand the links. What type of response is that, trolling.
He is just a troll here to disrupt good discussions, there is no other purpose for his presence on this blog. We had his like minded before, they did the same tactics. None cared the least about intelligent debate. The enjoy provoking people.
Norman, there’s no need for another one of your rambling keyboard exercises. Just answer the simple question about the “real 255K surface”: If you believe it is in the atmosphere, what is its altitude.
Even the imaginary sphere has an identifiable surface.
Clint R
You are stuck in your definition of “surface”. Once again I will present you with the actual definition.
HERE: “the outside part or uppermost layer of something (often used when describing its texture, form, or extent).”
With a radiating surface it does NOT have to be a solid object or at one specific location (it can be but does not have to be).
The Earth’s radiating surface is the outside part of where the radiation is coming from. It is this.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Vitali-Tatartchenko/publication/259531096/figure/fig2/AS:297086416375813@1447842329577/From-Hasler-et-al-2003-internet-site-Earth-image-at-the-infrared-wavelength-of-67-m.png
This image is what the Earth’s radiating surface looks like. Again read the definition of the word “surface”.
The image you see radiates at an average of 240 W/m^2 and has a brightness temperature of 255 K.
I can say it over and over but you do not seem able to grasp concepts except in a very narrow band. Outside of your limited thought process you are unable to function.
It is your problem not mine. The radiant energy leaving Earth is a measured value (quite a real thing). You go on and on about a stupid point of what you think surface means. No one really cares at all about your foolish opinions on things. It does not stop you from posting. I am sure most would be happy if you found another blog to torture. I really don’t care at all about your posts. But since you are a troll you will invade anything I post to get your daily reaction. Sad person you must be. Not much of a life. Go on blogs, say stupid opinions, and then provoke other posters.
Norman, you confuse your beliefs with reality. Nothing you said about me is true.
If you believe that IR image is the “real 255K surface”, then what is its altitude? Are you claiming TOA is 255K? The “standard atmosphere” link you provided identifies 4 different altitudes that exhibit 255K. Are you saying TOA is also 255K?
What is the altitude that you believe is the “real 255K surface”?
Long rambling, insulting keyboard performances aren’t answering the simple question.
I see Clint R admits still having to ask others for answers instead of doing the basic work to understand climate basics on Clint’s own time. Clint is very confused writing 4 different altitudes on avg. for 255K when there is only 1 shown.
Norman hasn’t said what the altitude of his mythical “real 255K surface” is, yet.
He’s likely worn out his keyboard doing searches for “Earth’s real 255K surface”.
It sure knows how to hide….
It’s in plain sight in reliable & relevant texts Clint R. You do have to look it up and learn climate physics basics first though. I recognize entertaining blog readers with Clint’s mistakes is more fun and Clint would rather not do the hard work to understand climate physics.
norman…”I do not know if you are intentionally trolling…”
***
I don’t think there is evidence to claim Clint is trolling. If you had ever encountered a real troll you’d understand how they have techniques to disrupt blog discussions in a sinister manner.
For example, I used to be on Usenet (newsgroups) and we had a troll who would sporge the group. That means posting scads of off-topic spam to disrupt the flow of the posts. He would also post disgusting porn. You had to dig through scads of such crap to find legitimate posts.
Clint always presents a scientific argument and makes no attempt to interfere with others posting. He is no different than me in that we tend to post acerbic responses to ad hom attacks or red-herring arguments. From my experience in blogging, that is par for the course, even though some blog owners try to censor such communication.
To Roy’s credit, he allows us the leeway to vent, and to go off-topic. In return, I try to respect Roy’s personal space by refraining from using salty language that may offend his religious values. I think we should all strive to clean-up our salty language on Roy’s blog.
In other words, be aware that the blog owner has a religious faith and respect that. Not having a religious faith is not justification for disrespecting those who have legitimate faith. There are exceptions with terrorists hiding behind a religious faith, but, in general, I try to respect a person’s right to have his/her faith and to do nothing to insult him/her.
I don’t think that’s asking too much.
It would not hurt if ad homs and appeals to authority were accompanied by a valid scientific explanation. Of course, after a while, after repeated explanations with no legitimate scientific response, there is a tendency to cut straight to the ad homs.
Gordon Robertson
There are different types of trolls. His tactic is not based upon trying to determine the truth of anything. He comes here to insult and belittle to get emotional responses. He himself says how fun that is. How is that not trolling?
Also you defend his posting with: “Clint always presents a scientific argument and makes no attempt to interfere with others posting.”
No the poster going by Clint R never presents a scientific argument. He offers his opinions on science with zero evidence to support any of it. He insults and belittles other posters constantly and he will interfere with my posting to others often with belittling comments and opinions that offer zero evidence or support. He is trolling amusing himself by insults and belittling people. How many times has he called posters “braindead cult idiots”?
You might reconsider your defense of him. He has no interest in science or honest communication. He is here to disrupt and troll and he finds it amusing. I would like if he quit posting on this blog but it is not up to me. He has never made a good science point yet. He looks for typos and jumps all over them but he will ignore all evidence that shows his opinions are wrong.
Norman, when you rant on with nothing but insults, false accusations, and opinions, is that “trolling”?
Gordon Robertson
Do you see what I am talking about with the poster who goes by Clint R. He never presents any evidence for anything he says. He rambles on and on about how other insult him ignoring he brings it upon himself with his endless insults and derogatory comments about other posters.
If his behavior is not trolling what do you suggest it is? It is not rational scientific debate. He still will never support any of this opinions with evidence. I told you to see how he responds and tell me what is scientific about his response. Please let me know. It looks like a troll to me. If you see different point out any evidence he has ever provided for his unwanted opinions. I am hoping you can at least try.
Yes Clint R is a troll.
There are three main skeptics here — Gordon, DREMT, and myself. There are several others that occasionally contribute to the battle against the perversions of reality also. But none of us has the time to devote here that the cult idiots do. So, it is not really a battle of facts, as the cult idiots have none. It is a “keyboard” battle as to who can make the most comments. Since there are more cult idiots, and they have more time, they win the “keyboard” battle.
But that “win” is meaningless, except to them. People that can think for themselves see what is going on. They see the perversions of reality. They see the insults, misrepresentations, false accusations, from the braindead cult idiots.
Gordon, DREMT, and Clint get our credibility enhanced every time we are attacked by a cult idiot. So, I seldom respond to their immature personal attacks. I see garbage like this all the time,
RLH says:
November 27, 2021 at 4:37 AM
Yes Clint R is a troll.
but I usually ignore the braindead cult idiot.
Reality always wins.
“There are three main skeptics here”
No. There are 3 main idiots here.
Looks like pups has finally revealed his reason for trolling this blog, writing:
No, troll, science does not work that way. Science is mankind’s best attempt at finding the truth. A scientist presents data and hypothetical explanations for those results, then other scientists work to support or refute the hypothesis. One’s hypothesis supported by many facts can be destroyed with only one other factual result.
So, facts do matter, which pups apparently can not understand. It’s not a contest to see who can publish the most papers or who can flood the media with the most reports or advertisements, in the end, it’s the facts which count. Unless, of course, if one is being paid by the number of posts one makes, receiving more income per unit time for so doing.
The fact remains that the Moon rotates once an orbit.
Thanks “Son of Willard” for confirming my comment. You cult idiots have no facts.
Moon is NOT rotating. You don’t understand orbital motion, and you can’t learn.
Pup,
At the start of the month you tried to limit your comments. You still surpassed our Hall Monitor in spamming this thread. And now you want to make it about who can comment the most?
Get REAL.
Do the POLE Dance Experiment.
Report.
Now that pups has revealed it’s delusional world view, we still find an occasional glimmer of understanding from them:
But pups never discusses the facts, only making baseless assertions without support from physics or math.
The reality is that the Moon orbits the Earth and rotates once an orbit wrt inertial space. Since pups refuses to discuss the physics, the “spinners” have won the debate.
Moon IS rotating. You dont understand orbital motion, and you cant learn.
“Son of Willard”, the only thing you got right was when you quoted me accurately.
That’s always a good tactic. At least you’ll get SOMETHING correct.
You reject the ball-on-a-string simple analogy of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. But, you have NO alternate model that does not violate the laws of physics. You could not solve the barbell problem. You don’t understand vector addition.
You’ve got NOTHING.
I understand and deal with vector addition on a regular basis. It is you who have nothing scientific at all.
pups continues to display it’s idiocy, writing:
Of course, the “spinner” crowd has a rather simple model. It’s the Moon’s CoM orbiting around an elliptical path under the influence of gravity while also rotating around it’s CoM, which is the usual model simple description of motions for bodies within the Solar System.
pups the contrarian must PROVE that this model is invalid, else admit failure. While it’s doing so, it should also explain how the “rotating around an external axis” can occur when the orbit is precessing, as has been validated by centuries of measurements and is explained by the physics of gyroscopic motion.
Once again, Son of Willard, the only thing you got right was quoting me. Good job, that.
But the rest of your comment is just your usual nonsense. You stated your BELIEF, as to what Moon is doing. A BELIEF is NOT a model. Beliefs ain’t science.
Since you BELIEVE Moon is rotating as it orbits, your mission is to show how an orbiting body can also rotate while keeping one face to the inside of its orbit.
Since you don’t understand physics, vectors, or orbital motion, you may use a wooden horse mounted to the edge of a rotating MGR, for your demonstation.
If you choose to accept this mission, we’ll call it “Mission Impossible”….
pups performs it’s usual waffle away from an answer. It asked for a model and I pointed to the usual planetary model of a body following a translation path in an orbit under gravitational influence coupled with rotation of the body’s mass around it’s CoM. Since this might be called the Standard Model, pups must prove it’s wrong, which it pups refuses to do. pups also continues to ignore all evidence which refutes it’s version of reality.
Result? Pups fails again.
“Son of Willard”, you forgot to accurately quote something of mine. So your entire comment is WRONG.
But, if you would link to that “Standard Model”, that might be fun.
It is your belief that the Moon is not rotating on its axis once per orbit of the Earth/Moon barycenter. All the evidence says otherwise.
pups, These discussions aren’t about “fun”, it’s about physics. Perhaps you could take the time to actually post a serious reply and tell the world exactly where your postulated “External Axis’ is located, as I’ve requested previously. If you can’t even do that, your claims are bogus.
“Son of Willard” (or do you prefer “Willard, Jr.?), I don’t know where you got the “External Axis”. That may have been something DREMT was explaining to you, that you couldn’t understand. You don’t understand much.
But, if you would link to that “Standard Model”, that might be fun.
Clint R,
“Norman, bobdroege, Entropic man, Willard, and maybe one or two others that I missed”
How nice of you to list some of the people that are smarter than you.
Isn’t that amazing that climate contrarians are also COVID contrarians?
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-pandemic-is-over-again/
Says who?
Me.
Idiots will say anything.
I know you are but what am I, dummy?
An idiot. That is clear.
No U, dummy.
z
willard…”Isnt that amazing that climate contrarians are also COVID contrarians?”
***
The myth that we have a pandemic is being kept alive by idiots like the one writing the article at your link. They have completely bought into the misinformation that the tests are good and that it’s perfectly normal for a virus to be around 2 years after its discovery.
In the article, the author ridicules claims that a virus cannot cause infection without supplying evidence that it can. That is an ad hom attack.
Dr. Stefan Lanka, a German microbiologist has raised this issue after doing an exhaustive check of the history of viruses. He explains how a virus has been identified as a bacteriophage, an entity believed at the time to ‘eat bacteria’. They did not understand that bacteria has the ability to transform itself into another form, making it appear as if it has disappeared (eaten).
In effect, the scientists were searching for something that did not exist.
The old-time scientists claimed a virus was at work even though no one had ever seen one or could explain how it worked. That belief persisted through the 1930s prompting one researcher to claim that no virus could meet the requirement of Koch’s Postulate, so he went about modifying KP to explain the virus.
Google Koch’s Postulate.
Then, in the early 1950s, the DNA molecule shape was discovered. That lead viral researchers in a search to find the genome of viruses without first having identified the virus. They did that through inference and consensus with them arguing for 50 years about the genetic shape of the measles virus. If they had the virus there would have been no debate.
That has been the history of virology, smoke and mirrors. Viruses have been inferred and alleged but no one has ever seen one at work. The theory that viruses have spikes that can attach to cells to deliver their RNA load is sheer fiction. The truth is that even today no one has any idea how a virus works. All that can be seen on an electron microscope is a thin slice with a thickness of about 100 billionth of a metre.
When the first paper was submitted claiming a coronavirus, the paper was rejected. The reason given was that the image could represent any viral particle, not particularly a virus. That is the problem faced by people studying EM images, unless the researcher has immense experience it is far too easy to confuse a virus image with that of cell debris.
I have my own theory on the coronavirus image since it is identified by a halo (corona) around the image. Electrons are charge particles that carry a magnetic field around them when they move. An interaction between those electric/magnetic fields and the material in the sample being bombarded could produce such a halo.
In his work with viruses, Lanka has claimed to never have found one that causes infection. Furthermore, through his historical research, he has investigated claims of modern viruses like measles and polio, and failed to find one scientific paper proving they are caused by a virus. He took his theory to a German supreme court and convinced them there is no proof that the measles virus exists. He does not claim measles does not exist, or a virus, only that the research has not proved a virus exists that causes it.
We need to be far more open-minded and resist an appeal to authority. We presume the medical fraternity must be right, for some unexplained reason. There is far more reason to suspect many of them are incompetent and that they are leading us down the proverbial garden path. That is particularly true of the World Health Organization and the various CD-Cs, who supply us with misleading information.
The truth is that HIV theory failed miserably and since covid theory is based on it, it is bound to fail as well. Montagnier, credited with discovering HIV, now claims it is harmless to a healthy immune system and that HIV does not cause AIDS. In fact, the evidence points to the fact covid theory has already failed, only a tiny fraction of 1% of any population has died from the current contagion.
We are being lied to by incompetent health officials who are making up covid theory as they go along. If that was not the case they would invite skepticism. They don’t. they dismiss it and are trying to have skeptical views suppressed. That is akin to a political dictatorship, not science.
C’mon, Gordo.
You’re a gift that keeps on giving.
Think.
Earlier, Witless Wee Willy (Willard) wrote –
“Not unlike Sky and Moon Dragon cranks, when you think about it.”
The witless one is apparently trying to redefine “Sky Dragons” (other witless fools who believe that adding CO2 to air makes it hotter!), to mean something else.
He hasn’t quite managed to define his imaginary “Moon Dragon cranks”, but presumably this is his attempt to be gratuitously offensive to anyone who disagrees with him. Only a witless fool would choose to feel offended by statements from an anonymous powerless, retarded nitwit like Woebegone Wee Willy.
Wee Willy is probably deluded enough to think that “climate change” is responsible for “weather”. The poor simpleton is too retarded to accept that “climate” is just the statistics of past weather events.
Ah well, it takes all kinds, I suppose.
Mike Flynn,
Metapsychological Faillibility,
Dragon cranks slayed nothing.
NOTHING.
As a troll slayer myself, I might take offense in your usage of “slayer.”
But I won’t – you’re too amusing!
Cheers.
Woeful Wee Willy,
If you weren’t retarded, you wouldn’t be able to take offense at something I didnt say.
You seem to be besotted eith the term “slayer”.
Do you imagine you are some kind of noble “climate warrior”, slaying imaginary “dragons”, a la Don Quixote? In reality, you are a powerless and delusional nitwit.
Back to your fantasy, Wee Willy. There, at least, you are no doubt powerful, wise, and respected! Pity it is all imaginary.
Mike Flynn,
Max Fop,
Why would you try to ridicule your own trope?
Why?
Because you’re Mike Flynn, that’s why!
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Wriggling Wee Willy,
You can’t blather your way out of being an idiot.
Others can read, you know.
Accept reality – or continue to dwell in your richly bizarre fantasy world, if you prefer.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
Get your hierarchy in order –
You’re a sock puppet.
The lowest of the lowest.
And you’re getting slayed.
Sorry!
[*Swoons*]
Some other commentator wrote the following dimwitted attempt at a gotcha –
“I await your explanation of the 33C difference between the 255K emission temperature measured by satellites and the 288C surface temperature measured by thermometers.”
He is obviously to thick to work it out for himself, so he wouldn’t benefit from me pointing out that his gotcha is completely stupid. He might even be silly enough to believe that temperatures are measured in W/m2!
Mike Flynn,
Mould Frakleberry.
An example of intellectual paucity – typical climate crackpottery!
No wonder Wee Willy Wanker uses a pseudonym. His employer (or career) might not be so forgiving if they knew the degree of mental defect their employee (charge) suffers from.
At least Wee Willy Nincompoop serves as a sterling example of the intellectual level of the average climate crank.
Mike Flynn,
Macarena Fan.
Stunned into repetitive and pointless stupidity, are you?
Have you located the mythical “Mike Flynn”, yet? Maybe it is just a pseudonym, you fool!
In any case, it certainly seems to act as a trigger to reduce you to incoherence.
I’ll give it a try – Mike Flynn, Mike Flynn, Mike Flynn! How’s that? Don’t have a breakdown, now – no one will notice a difference.
[chortles]
Mike Flynn,
Missed Filibuster.
W
Making the big time. Today Climateball. Tomorrow the World.
Why stop there, Pozzo.
entropic…”NASA defines life as a self-sustaining chemical system capable of Darwinian evolution”
***
Once again, NASA screws up. There is not a shred of evidence to support the Darwinian theory. There is plenty of evidence to support genetics but that applies to one species only. NASA has no evidence of an evolution that can explain where humans came from. All they have is a very loose comparison between apes and humans but they have no idea how apes allegedly evolved.
Neither is there a shred of evidence to support the basis of Darwinian evolution theory, which is abiogenesis. That theory claims lifeless elements like hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon and phosphorus can combine somehow to form life. If that cannot be proved, and it has not been proved to date, then the rest of the theory, based on the mythical ‘natural selection’ is nothing more than conjecture.
NASA needs to clean house of people making such ludicrous claims.
The title of Darwin’s book is the Origin of Species, not the Origin of life.
Maybe you should crack a biology textbook before you go spouting off.
Or I could ask for world peace.
I don’t think either one will happen.
The full title is “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”
The “Favoured Races” is often left out due to political correctness. It turns out that many of the Darwin-followers were racists, do the point of favoring eugenics.
Evolution is a belief. It ain’t science.
We know from the Laws of Physics that there is an Intelligent Designer. Now who you believe that Intelligent Designer is, is your religion. It’s your problem to sort through the false religions to get to the real one.
What do you have as an alternative? God? Which one?
The best answer for the origin of life, right now, is, wait for it,
the next time it comes around on the guitar,
I don’t know.
rlh…”Death risk increases without a vaccine”.
***
Proof???
Where/when did you develop this fetish for an appeal to authority? I suppose you worship Boris Hitler.
“Between 2 January and 24 September 2021, the age-adjusted risk of deaths involving coronavirus (COVID-19) was 32 times greater in unvaccinated people than in fully vaccinated individuals.
The weekly age-standardised mortality rates (ASMRs) for deaths involving COVID-19 were consistently lower for people who had received two vaccinations compared with one or no vaccinations”
https://www.ons.gov.uk
maguff…”Are Viruses Alive? or are they lifeless packages of protein and nucleic acid?”
***
Great Maguff, an expose on the history of viruses by Carl Zimmer, a New York Times columnist. He knows less about viruses than my Granny.
Here’s the real information from an expert.
Scroll down the page to find the English articles…
https://wissenschafftplus.de/cms/de/wichtige-texte
maguff…you inadvertently raised an excellent question as to whether a virus is alive or dead. Of course, a virus is dead in the sense that it has no means of reproducing itself, It allegedly depends on the cell it is supposed to infect in order to carry on.
A question raised by Dr. Stefan Lanka in the following article asks the question of how a dead virus can possibly enter a cell that has a coating designed to resist such entry. The modified RNA in the covid vaccine, which allegedly represent viral RNA, must be modified so that it can enter a cell.
https://wissenschafftplus.de/uploads/article/die-wurzel-interview-englisch.pdf
The seven telltale traits of conspiratorial thinking:
Did you know Omicron is an anagram of Moronic?
Ecce signum.
The Arctic has been warming since well before that noted by other measurement series. Since about 1900 in fact.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abj2946
” The Arctic has been warming since well before that noted by other measurement series. Since about 1900 in fact. ”
Agreed, but not surprising. The increase in CO2 emissions and concentration related to the industrialisation of the late 1800s marks the onset of global warming.
All the main physical indicators show an inflection point around 1900 as the Arctic responds to that warming.
Except that Ocean currents were identified as being the cause of the warming and I know of no reference that CO2 causes that sort of change in that period.
“Our results combined with existing reconstructions demonstrate a rapid and early Atlantification of the eastern Fram Strait at the onset of the 20th century”
it seems likely that the slowdown of the AMOC during the early 20th century has been caused primarily by increased export of Arctic sea ice and freshwater in the North-East Atlantic following the end of the LIA
“This cooling has been suggested by the authors to be an expression of the upper mixed layer freshening in response to sea ice loss, which could have released cold and fresh polar waters into the Fram Strait.”
So not CO2 related.
“sea ice loss”
Caused by warm water not CO2.
That is why it is called Global Warming and not Global CO2, dummy.
Willard now claims the Global Warming is not caused by CO2.
“We argue that this modern cooling reflects the seasonal shift of phytoplankton blooms in response to recent sea ice retreat as suggested by modern evidence in the Arctic where sea ice dynamics control the timing of phytoplankton blooms (35, 36).”
Nowhere in the paper does it mention CO2.
“Currently, the latest CMIP6 historical climate experiments initialized with transient forcing from PMIP4 last millennium simulations fail to reproduce the post-LIA Atlantification documented in our reconstructions”
Entropic man
” The increase in CO2 emissions and concentration related to the industrialisation of the late 1800s marks the onset of global warming. ”
https://i.postimg.cc/Ls70pRz3/GHCN-daily-Arctic-1900-2021.png
Where is your scientific proof of CO2 being the main actor of what we see above?
You seem to be the pendant, the complement of a strange guy nicknamed CO2IsLife.
While this guy tries to explain the absence of CO2 effects with everything, you conversely tend to explain everything with the presence of CO2 effects.
Both viewpoints imho have more to do with ideology than with reasoning.
I have read a wonderful paper written (unluckily avalilable in French only) by Jean-Louis Dufresne and Jacques Treiner in 2011 about the effects of CO2, and appreciated they will to do the inverse.
Two reasons why I focus on CO2. The first is positive.The physics works. You can explain the observed temperature change from the physical changes due to CO2 alone.
The second is negative. If you track all the main forcing agents which might cause the climate to warm or cool, you find that all except two are currently neutral or causing slow cooling.
Those two are changing land use and ,chiefly, CO2. None of the others, separately or together, produce enough forcing to explain the temperature change.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
Sorry about the presentation, but the data can be confirmed by other sources.
Only if you assume that natural cycles contribute nothing or very little to the warming observed.
Ent believes, “Two reasons why I focus on CO2. The first is positive.The physics works.”
Wrong Ent, the physics does NOT work. In fact, as you see right here, the cult idiots believe there’s a “real 255K surface”! They can’t identify it. But they fervently BELIEVE in it.
The so-called “energy balance” is a travesty of science.
And just because CO2 absorbs infrared does not mean it can raise temperatures. Strawberries, and everything else, can absorb infrared. Do you believe strawberries are “heating the planet”?
” Only if you assume that natural cycles contribute nothing or very little to the warming observed. ”
Cycles are cyclic. They return to their starting point. There are short cycles like ENSO, NOA, the disputed AMOC and the 11 year solar cycle. All are too short to explain the warming.
To explain 140 years of warming requires a cycle at least 240 years long.
Only two long cycles might apply. The Grand solar cycle might explain it, but it is in a cooling phase. So is the Milankovich cycle.
Natural cycles are anything but regular. Try tapping a log and determine its ‘note’. There are many frequencies and sub-frequencies that will reinforce and destroy each other over time.
The same is true for all natural ‘cycles’ such as ocean and atmospheric currents, air pressures, rain, clouds, etc.
Some may only last milliseconds, others centauries.
Of course planetary cycles are more regular but even the Moon’s path around the Earth is anything but regular except in the grossest of terms.
entropic…”Two reasons why I focus on CO2. The first is positive.The physics works. You can explain the observed temperature change from the physical changes due to CO2 alone”.
***
Where in physics is there proof that the trace amount of CO2 in the atmosphere can cause warming? The study of gases is not really a topic one would find discussed in physics anyway, that’s more along the lines of studies in chemistry, employing the Ideal Gas Law.
The truth is that CO2 can contribute no more than about 0.04C warming for every 1C warming in the atmosphere. Here’s your proof.
If you apply the IGL to the atmosphere, presuming a constant volume (V) and a constant number of atoms (n) then temperature is directly proportional to pressure as in P = (nR/V)T.
Dalton’s Law is part of the IGL. It states that the total pressure of a gas mixture is the sum of the partial pressures of each gas in the mix. Since P is directly proportional to T, then each partial pressure must produce a partial temperature. Although temperature is normally claimed to be the average kinetic energy of gas molecules, there is nothing wrong with considering the average energy of gas molecules/atoms representing each partial pressure.
There’s a good reason for that. Pressure is the average force exerted by a gas on the container walls. It could be claimed that each gas in the mix exerts its own forces on the container wall, producing its own partial pressure. So, why should each partial pressure not be proportional to a partial temperatures.
Considering that wrt heat, the total heat in a gas must be the sum of the heat quantities produced by each gas in a mix. Of course, temperature is a measure of relative heat levels, therefore the average heat produced by each gas in the mix must have an average temperature. If you can sum the partial heat quantities, you can sum the partial temperatures.
The partial pressure of each gas in the mix is also directly proportional to the mass of each gas, which is ‘n’ in PV = nRT. “n’ is actually the number of molecules of each gas but the percent of each gas molecule wrt the total number is nearly equivalent to mass percent of each gas in the mix, which is representative of the concentration of each gas in the mix.
Oxygen and nitrogen combine to account for nearly 99% of the mass percent of the atmosphere whereas CO2 account for only 0.04%. Therefore, we would expect N2/O2 to produce 99% of the heat and CO2 only 0.04% of the heat. That means for each 1C warming, CO2 is capable of producing about 0.04C.
“To explain 140 years of warming requires a cycle at least 240 years long”
What is the time it takes for the ocean cycle from pole to equator (and further) to overturn?
You cant’ just appeal to unknown cycles of all kinds, RLH. You have to show evidence that they are there.
A ~ 240 y cycle? Show us evidence for it and that it caused delta-T of ~ 1 C in the past.
If not, its just speculation, hopes and dreams.
And those dont stack up vs an actual physics-based, measurable, demonstrated mechanism, with unique fingerprints that have been observed.
So what mechanism do you propose for the downwards temperature movement from the MWP to the LIA? Chance?
“Where is your scientific proof of CO2 being the main actor of what we see above?”
There is a whole literature on the subject.
Briefly, the CO2 warming hypothesis predicts the following, all of which have been observed.
∆F = 5.35ln(C/Co)
Decreased OLR, particularly between 13 and 17 micrometres.
Increased DWLR, ” ” ” ” ” ” ”
Warmer troposphere
Cooler stratosphere
Higher tropopause
None of the alternative hypotheses predict this combination of changes. For example, increased solar insolation would increase OLR and warm the stratosphere.
Ent, would that “whole literature” be found under your adored “science-fiction”?
None of the models that reflect CO2 warming do a good job of explaining what we see unless you make a large number of tweaks and assumptions.
“Currently, the latest CMIP6 historical climate experiments initialized with transient forcing from PMIP4 last millennium simulations fail to reproduce the post-LIA Atlantification documented in our reconstructions”
EM,
Don’t be stupid. There is no “CO2 warming”. You are dreaming.
All a figment of deranged pseudo-scientific wannabes.
Fools who don’t accept reality. The Earth has cooled to its present temperature from a hotter state. If you have an alternative hypothesis to explain observations that the Earth I has a molten interior, go your hardest.
It seems to have escaped the notice of quite intelligent people, Carl Sagan for instance, who apparently believed that the internal temperature of a hot object was irrelevant to its surface temperature.
Maybe he never picked up a hot potato with his bare hands, only to drop it when he realised how hot the skin was! The Earth is bigger, a lot hotter, and has an internal heat source (now largely depleted), but no doubt you get the idea.
As to thermometers showing higher temperatures over time, it would be extremely surprising if this was not so.
Over the last century or so, the population has multiplied, and the per capita energy production and usage has multiplied even more. As all energy production and use is ultimately manifested as low energy radiation which is lost to outer space, anybody who claims that thermometers do not respond to anthropogenic infrared is quite simply out of touch with reality.
Are you one of those reality deniers?
> None of the models that reflect CO2 warming do a good job of explaining
As opposed to which one, dummy?
See the paper quoted for an assessment of CHIP6.
No I won’t, dummy.
Willard doesn’t want to take any data that shows that anything other than CO2 causes any warming observed.
So he stays in his comfort zone.
Richard won’t even cite his own stuff, pretends he does work, but then he keeps asking questions.
The same silly algorithm.
Not as stupid as you are though.
“…it seems likely that the slowdown of the AMOC during the early 20th century has been caused primarily by increased export of Arctic sea ice and freshwater in the North-East Atlantic following the end of the LIA”
rlh…”has been caused primarily by increased export of Arctic sea ice and freshwater in the North-East Atlantic following the end of the LIA”
***
And there was plenty ice to export from the Arctic. Attempts to sail through the NW Passage between 1600 and 1850 were blocked by channels full of solid ice and ice floes. Not only that, glaciers in the Arctic region had expanded mightily and were feeding the ocean ice.
And yet the Vikings were able to populate Greenland. For at least a few centauries.
rlh…”And yet the Vikings were able to populate Greenland. For at least a few centauries”.
***
That was during the Medieval Warm Period that preceded the LIA. It has been concluded by some researchers that the drop in temperatures due to the LIA drove the Vikings out of Greenland.
BTW…there is evidence that the MWP was just as warm as today, some have claimed warmer than today.
There is evidence that the cooling effect of the LIA extended as far south as Florida. Snow and freezing temperatures were reported in what is now Florida and Texas. There were famines in the area, and further north, due to crop failures.
There were also crop failures in the Scottish Highlands around the same time, producing famines. If I recall correctly, that happened in the 1790s.
Gordo, There were several unusually large volcanoes which cooled things: Samalas ~1257, Kuwae 1453, Huaynaputina 1600, Tambora 1814-15, Krakatau 1883, Etc.
Here’s some reading: “Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks”.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL050168
That should read “Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age may have been triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks”.
Fails to explain how volcanoes triggered Fram Straight alterations.
RLH, I gave a reference, You aren’t allowed to change the title.
The Greenland Norse were mainly situated in two areas, the main settlement on the extreme south-eastern coast and the Western settlement northward up the coast of the Labrador sea. The Western settlement vanished earlier than the main settlement, perhaps the result of the 1253 eruption. The last dated record from the Eastern Settlement was in 1408, but without other records, nobody knows what happened to them, last I heard.
“RLH, I gave a reference, You arent allowed to change the title”
Not even if it makes the quote more accurate?
Nothing can be absolutely certain about climate. All things are just probabilities in the end.
swannie…”There were several unusually large volcanoes which cooled things:”
***
Vulcanism cannot explain 400 years of cooling. Maybe a year or two, but not 400 years.
Gordo, It’s not clear to me that there was a continuous period of colder conditions called the LIA. The volcanic effects were severe in many locations, which are the most remembered events. The Year Without a Summer From Tambora is one such example and that may have been the combined effects of other eruptions a few years previous. The earlier eruptions of SAMALAS and later KUWAE both had devastating impacts world wide. People don’t usually record “normal” weather.
Also, there are several date ranges which have been offered, which is another source of confusion. To be sure, there were the periods of low Sun Spot activity, but I doubt that applies to the entire period.
“Its not clear to me that there was a continuous period of colder conditions called the LIA”
The LIA was the low point in a sequence of downward temperatures trends which had existed for a few hundred years or more since the MWP.
Not all of those downward movements can be due solely to volcanoes.
RLH I hope that you read the Wiki articles. Note that Kuwae and then Samalas were first identified by their sulfate signature in Antarctic ice cores before the actual sites were found. Here’s more detail about the KUWAE eruption from Kevin Pang:
https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/jpl-confirms-15th-century-volcanic-eruption
Of course, volcanic eruptions aren’t the only cause of climate changes, but their effects can’t be ignored either.
“This implies a post-LIA scenario characterized by contrasting hydrographic patterns with fresh and cold water spreading into the western SPG, whereas the Svalbard region bathed by the Western Spitsbergen Current experiences a gradual warming and more saline conditions. This interpretation is consistent with a cooling of the subpolar northeast Atlantic and a general weakening of the AMOC evidenced in both modeling studies (52, 57) and reconstructions (Fig. 5) (54, 55, 58).”
Nowhere in the paper does it mention CO2.
“Currently, the latest CMIP6 historical climate experiments initialized with transient forcing from PMIP4 last millennium simulations fail to reproduce the post-LIA Atlantification documented in our reconstructions”
Is CMIP6 sensitive enough to detect changes on such a small scale?
CMIP6 covers warm9ing in the Arctic for sure. But it doesn’t explain how.
Models are not meant to explain, dummy.
We have theories for that.
Wee Willy Donkeybrain,
No you don’t, dimwit. You can’t even find a testable hypothesis, because you can’t even say where this mythical GHE may be observed, measured, and documented!
You are just another powerless, deranged, climate crackpot.
Back to your fantasy, dummy, with the rest of the nutters.
Are you saying that the models don’t replicate the theories?
No, dummy, I’m saying that you have no idea about what models are supposed to do.
Wonky Wee Willy,
You can say whatever you like.
What form of insanity leads you you to think that anyone would or should take notice of your opinion, coming as it it does from a powerless anonymous commenter?
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Misbegotten Fabric,
Please learn proper Internet.
I am pseudonymous.
You are a sock puppet.
Yet you’re not even anonymous!
We all know you work for a fossil fuel industry.
Just think about that.
Oh! Oh! Oh!
“you have no idea about what models are supposed to do”
Do explain what they actually do then oh guru.
Wee Willy Idiot,
As I asked before, what form of insanity leads you you to think that anyone would or should take notice of your opinion, coming as it it does from a powerless anonymous commenter?
I see that you don’t even know.
Carry on with your nonsense – as in “Please learn proper Internet.” And the rest.
> Do explain
Not my job to spoon feed you, dummy.
The word “model” should provide you a good hint.
If you want more, send me some crypto.
Wee Willy Wanker demonstrates that he is a dimwitted troll, who is distinctly unhappy at being exposed as a knowledge free fool.
The word “deranged” gives a hint to his modus operandi.
The words “slimy” and “gutless” give a hint to his personality.
Hint, hint!
Mike Flynn,
Moderated Follower.
You might like:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/models-science/
Or not!
Oh! Oh! Oh!
“Not my job to spoon feed you”
Not your job (or intention) to explain anything other than cling to the illusion that CO2 and volcanoes are responsible for all of the warming observed so far. Got you.
Nice strawman, dummy. Climate scientists know about natural variability. In fact without them you wouldn’t know anything about it.
Not that it explains how you’re trying to appeal to your ignorance, however. That I can explain to you. It’s part and parcel of Climateball:
https://judithcurry.com/2021/11/27/public-climateball/
Straw men and what you call ‘humor’ makes up most of what you post.
No U, dummy.
z
We’ll leave aside the cause of the warming, a different discussion.
You can however see the increase in temperature from the late 1800s and the Fram Strait changes.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abj2946
https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/global-surface-temperatures-best-berkeley-earth-surface-temperatures
If you can’t explain the warming then what do you have? A mystery.
For me the evidence for the CO2 hypothesis is stronger than for any of the alternatives.
See my 3.04pm and 4.02pm posts,in discussion with Bindidon, for more detail.
Also my 4.12pm post on cycles.
EM,
On the other hand, maybe the Earth has cooled from 100% molten, to about 99% molten.
No need for a GHE or any other magical (and non-existent) mechanism.
You can deny the laws of thermodynamics all you like. All you need is one experiment to demonstrate that CO2 can produce warming, or, at the very least, to cause a total cessation of cooling.
I don’t fancy your chances, but give it a go if you think you can do it. How hard can one tiny reproducible physical experiment be?
Mike Flynn,
Mint Flatulence,
This is not a discussion about Doritos.
We’ll tell you when it’ll be about Doritos.
Don’t worry.
We all know you love Doritos!
Cheers.
Regular cycles are not natural and repetitive. Very little in nature is ‘tuned’ to a dominant frequency.
Wobbly Wee Willy cannot accept reality. Retreats into a fantasy about Mike Flynn, Doritos, and similar bizarre irrelevancies!
He has probably convinced himself that inscrutability and obscurity are marks of intelligence. I suppose that in his fantasy world, they are.
Wee Willy cannot help himself avoiding reality. Much better to retreat into a fantasy world where he is wise, powerful, and respected!
I really shouldn’t trigger the poor wee creature, but –
Mike Flynn Mike Flynn Mike Flynn.
I could claim the Devil made me do it, but the reality is that I did it all by myself!
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
You got that right-
“Mike Flynn Mike Flynn Mike Flynn.”
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Weary Wee Willy descends into obscure incomprehensibility-
“Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
You got that right-
“Mike Flynn Mike Flynn Mike Flynn.”
Oh! Oh! Oh!”
Maybe his mother dropped him on his head when he was small.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn, everyone!
*The crowd cheers.*
“If you cant explain the warming then what do you have? A mystery.”
Why the Little Ice Age was cold has not been fully explained.
Or over thousands of years, one has centuries which are colder than other centuries.
One could point to solar activity and volcanic activity as being somehow connected.
It seems it doesn’t take much warm water in the arctic ocean to have large effect.
Or as mentioned if arctic ocean had the impossible of that Ocean having a uniform of 3.5 C would be the end of the world.
Or this would be enormous amount of warm surface water in the arctic ocean- and would take forever get rid of so much “hot water”.
Or such is the CAGW.
The Arctic Ocean is said to the coldest ocean {but it’s ocean which mostly within the arctic circle, so, how not be the coldest}.
” In order of size, the largest of the oceans is the Pacific Ocean, followed by the Atlantic Ocean, the Indian Ocean, the Southern Ocean and the Arctic Ocean. To give an idea of the range of size, the Pacific Ocean extends for 60 million square miles, while the Arctic Ocean is a mere 5.4 million sq miles.”
http://www.earthtimes.org/encyclopaedia/environmental-issues/oceans/
{5.4 m = about 14 million square km- or about the size of Antarctica. Hmm if Antarctica had suddenly the average temperature of 3.5 C which would the larger effect, Antarctica 3.5 C or Arctic Ocean with 3.5 C uniform temperature}.
Anyhow, the northern hemisphere simply wouldn’t have very cold winters, but probably have more snowing in the winter.
Obviously people in northern frozen waste lands, could need less booze and be happier. And global air temperature would be a lot warmer.
“Why the Little Ice Age was cold has not been fully explained”
Long term changes in how much warm water is transported to higher Northern latitudes might offer some clue.
Sea levels dropped by some amount during LIA.
What effect does rising and falling sea level have on
how much warm waters get into the arctic?
But even tides could have an effect. Storms could have effect.
Damming rivers might have some effect.
How about soot effect upon sea ice. And Forest fire?
I tend to think natural changing in surface water flows, would be a larger factor. But one could factor 1 + factor 2, and etc.
But what biggest, and second biggest factor, is mostly what I mean.
It seems probably solar activity and volcanic are perhaps 1 and 2.
But I could be leaving out another factor being bigger than these 1 or 2.
One thing I like to know, is the relation to oceanic volcanic activity which still remains mostly “unseen” vs the volcanic activity on land, which was harder to miss.
Or when more land volcanic activity does than tend to mean more oceanic activity {or the opposite or completely unrelated} or they say more 80% of earth’s volcanic activity occurs unseen in the ocean.
That seem like area of uncertainty.
entropic…”You can however see the increase in temperature from the late 1800s”
***
We were just coming out of a 400 year mini ice age where global temps had been 1C to 2C below normal. One would expect warming. There is plenty of written evidence and proxy evidence to back the Little Ice Age existence.
C’mon, Gordo. Think.
Climate scientists already know about the LIA. In fact, without climate scientists you would not know about it.
It. Does. Not. Refute. AGW.
Simple, really.
It does explain at least some of the warming since 1800 or so.
Wayward Wee Willy,
Did you have a “brain fart”?
“In fact, without climate scientists you would not know about it.” Really?
Maybe you could name some of the “climate scientists” without whom past weather events would remain a mystery?
You really do spout nonsense at times, don’t you?
Maybe you are unaware that climate is the statistics of past weather. Not much science there, is there?
Maybe all the “climate scientists” are as delusional as you are.
Whacky Wee Willy,
As you wrote, you are “simple, really.”
At least you get something right, even if by accident.
willard…”It. Does. Not. Refute. AGW”.
***
According to physicist Syun Akasofu it does. He claimed the IPCC erred by not considering the estimate 0.5C/century re-warming after the LIA.
https://www.scirp.org/pdf/NS20101100012_47058306.pdf
https://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2010/12/27/guest-post-the-continuing-recovery-from-the-little-ice-age-by-syun-ichi-akasofu/
C’mon, Gordo. Think.
Akasofu simply eyeballed a linear trend in some ocean cycle and proclaimed that it’s natural variability. This is so silly that even Dana can refute that:
https://www.mdpi.com/2225-1154/1/2/76
You’re a patzer.
Woebegone Wee Willy,
So you say, so you say.
Unfortunately, the mindless opinions of a powerless, anonymous, climate crank are as valueless as Michael Mann!s self awarded “Nobel Prize”.
Dana? Who is Dana? One of your self appointed “climate scientists”? Or just another loony climate crackpot?
Carry on dreaming.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
You ask-
“Dana?”
Yes, Dana.
Cheers.
LIA pretty much refutes all of AGW. The proxy data shows it was warmer than now for most of the Holocene. No one can explain why the temperature lurched colder at the start of the LIA. However, it stands to reason that earth would warm naturally once the cause of LIA abated.
CO2 has no significance in this natural recovery. AGW is a farce.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-1033321
E. I like the volcano theory. I also like the the theory of Grand Solar Minimum and the concept of changing strength in solar electro/magnetic fields having an influence on volcanos. However, no one knows for sure.
“LIA pretty much refutes all of AGW. ”
Don’t see how. The LIA is just part of a natural5500 year cooling trend as we cool towards the end of the Holocene interglacial.
http://railsback.org/FQS/FQS22katoFutureTemps03.jpg
AGW is an artificial (ie human induced) post 1880 phemomenon.
AGW is not just “artificial”, RICHARD.
It’s imaginary.
Wee Willy is once again reduced to gibberish –
“Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn,
You ask-
Dana?
Yes, Dana.
Cheers.”
What a strange variety of climate crank he is!
Mike Flynn,
Masquerading Forcefully,
Keep playing dumb:
You’re good at it!
Cheers.
Gee. Why am I not surprised at Whinnying Wee Willy’s comment?
More incoherent gibberish.
Mike, Flynn Mike Flynns.
And yet more gibberish.
Strong his derangement is.
Mike Flynn,
Multiplicative Forcing.
entropic…” Briefly, the CO2 warming hypothesis predicts the following, all of which have been observed.
∆F = 5.35ln(C/Co)”
***
Science fiction. Try PV = nRT. That equation proves that CO2 can contribute no more warming than about 0.04C for every 1C warming in the atmosphere.
Nobel prize for the worst climate model prediction part two
https://youtu.be/5OubfvWAJ4c
The most accurate model (i.e. corresponds best to actual observations over all elevations) is inmcm4.
Take a note how quiet the climate cranks are on these two posts,
they have no talking points and no ad hominems pre-written by their commanders in their talking points folders.
> LIA pretty much refutes all of AGW.
Here we go again:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter_09.pdf
Have you ever heard of General Romeo Dallaire and the Genocide in Rwanda? It was the same UN as UN IPCC; not worthy of trust.
This from the same idiot who wrote –
“Climate scientists already know about the LIA. In fact, without climate scientists you would not know about it.”
So apparently the “climate scientists” already know about something they say they know little about. Gee, sounds like climate science, doesn’t it? According to the IPCC, the LIA etc. didn’t exist – until even the IPCC had to admit it did!
What a pack of clowns. These idiots claim to know the average temperature of the globe, or the surface, or the air close to the surface, or maybe close to the sea, or something. They can’t actually say what it is at any given time, of course.
Top secret.
Luckily there is one born every minute, like Wee Willy Willard. Gullible enough to believe cooling is warming, and so on. What a fool!
IPCC doesn’t trust the IPCC
Past projections of IPCC have been shown to be wrong.
And they are simply doubling down at being wrong
The IPCC can’t say how much warming has been caused by higher CO2 levels.
The countries that IPCC has been advising have not followed their advice.
Their advice has been bad advice.
They are incompetent, and are they have proven to be obviously, corrupt.
What is plain is that burning wood, causes more CO2 emission.
IPCC has failed to advise that burning wood as alternative form of energy would increases CO2 global emissions.
IPCC has failed to say nuclear energy is only proven way to reduce CO2 emission.
IPCC has failed to indicated that solar energy and wind energy are not a viable alternation energy.
There has been some talk of getting electrical power from Space.
This certainly possible. But I believe the IPCC is simply incapable of indicating how and when this could be done.
Good points, gbaikie. Especially the “incompetent” and “corrupt” references.
Also we need to remind IPCC that the “CO2 warming theory” violates the laws of physics. In simple terms, they are trying to claim something as innocent as strawberries can “heat the planet”.
Let’s be specific:
What was called the Greenhouse Effect Theory:
“…The surface temperature of this hypothetical planet is 33 °C (59 °F) below Earth’s actual surface temperature of approximately 14 °C (57 °F). The greenhouse effect is the contribution of greenhouse gases and aerosols to this difference.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
Was never theory nor reasonable hypothesis.
And there was not involvement of a scientist which was an author of it.
It was declaration of atheist shaman who desired return to glory days of when “the unwashed masses” could not have indoor plumbing.
An atmosphere does have what one call a greenhouse effect.
Having an atmosphere or having enough atmosphere, [as the Moon or Mars has small or insignificant atmosphere] does make a more uniform surface temperature.
Or a purpose of greenhouse is to cause a more uniform temperature
which allows plants to grow, or grow better. And mostly about having higher night time temperature.
An atmosphere causes a higher night time temperature.
Or the atmosphere is similar or analogous to greenhouse. And greenhouses also retain water vapor, and other that, are more useful in the seasons other than the summer: fall, winter, and early spring.
And enclosed space like a car with windows rolled up, would kill plants, as traps hot air inside the cars. And hot air inhibts convectional heat loss of the surface warmed by sunlight.
Another factor which causes greenhouse to have a more unform
temperature is using the mass of barrel of water to maintain a more uniform, it gives thermal mass.
Earth atmosphere with 10 tons per square meter is a lot more thermal mass as compared to a barrel water in greenhouse.
So as barrel of water helps a greenhouse, the mass of the atmosphere helps a lot with Earth “greenhouse effect” meaning makes night warmer as compared with not having as much thermal mass.
But we can move on to talk about more important matters, the global air temperature is caused by the global ocean surface temperature. Because ocean surface is 70% of earth surface AND average ocean temperature is about 17 C and average land temperature is about 10 C. The ocean surface is much warmer than land surface, and make global air temperature warmer, which in turn make land as warm as 10 C. Or if ocean surface temperature was instead cooler, it causes average land temperature to be colder than 10 C.
So, ocean surface controls global air temperature, and average temperature of entire ocean controls global climate.
We in an icehouse climate because entire ocean average temperature is about 3.5 C. If ocean were temperature was instead
5 C, we would be at highest Peak global temperature of any interglacial in last 2 million years. But not the highest global temperature of the entire 34-million-year Ice Age, that we are in.
Or last 2 million years has the coldest time period of the Late Cenozoic Ice Age also called Antarctic Glaciation.
Or when Antarctica started form ice sheets, that was the being of the icehouse global climate, which means having an ice cap and having a cold ocean. And something like 8 C ocean is a cold ocean. 10 C ocean are normal for our ancient Earth, and 15 C ocean are not uncommon.
Or another way to say it, is the last 2 million years, when polar bears and human evolved, it was the coldest period of the 34 million year Ice Age. And the chance of getting a 5 C ocean within 1000 years is probably impossible and more likely in 1000 years, we continue towards the next glaciation period which happen like a clock for millions of years.
But I believe there are ways to prevent entering into such colder times. And only requirement would be understanding Earth’s global climate
Mike Flynn,
Misty Fetoprotein,
You heard it right-
The LIA is as fleeting as the MWP!
Rejoice: science advance while you lulz!
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Wee Willy Wanker,
What’s the matter, Wee Willy?
Did your hand slip off at a critical time?
“Oh! Oh! Oh!”? Disappointed, were you?
Use a firmer grip, next time.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Muxing Facility.
Took my advice, did you?
Good for you!
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn, everyone!
*The crowd is entertained.*
No doubt that the rate of warming observed in the Artic could only be caused by CO2 (and volcanoes) and nothing else.
https://149366104.v2.pressablecdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/land-surface-trends-winter-summer-berkeley.png
According to Willard.
1950 is a long way from the LIA, dummy.
Who said 1950? Straw men don’t make you right, just stupid.
Click on your image, dummy:
https://149366104.v2.pressablecdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/land-surface-trends-winter-summer-berkeley.png
You keep deflecting like a Climateball rookie.
I just used Berkley data set from that image to show how concentrated Artic warming really is. Most of the warming in the Berkley set comes after 1980.
I’m not sure how CO2’s effects are so concentrated above 45 degrees North.
> I just used Berkley data set from that image to show how concentrated Artic warming really is.
In response to a comment about the LIA, dummy.
Little Ice Age. “But what about the Arctic?” Two different things.
So the rise in the Berkley data is nothing to do with the Arctic and its warming?
Or anything to do with the LIA?
Just Asking Questions ain’t a way to support your contrarianism, dummy.
Just being an idiot such as you doesn’t move things forward either.
No U, dummy.
z
Climate models (or their average) is running much hotter than actual observations.
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/12/cmip5-model-atmospheric-warming-1979-2018-some-comparisons-to-observations/
We discussed this.
The ensemble mean is warmer than observation because the average forcing of the ensemble was higher than the actual forcing.
The model itself does not run hot. If you do a run with the actual forcing you get the actual temperature.
So you are saying that we should not trust the model outputs as they are all too hot?
Yo do realize that only one model conforms to the actual data don’t you?
You do realize that one single realization can’t tell you if the models are running too hot, dummy, do you?
So you think that all of the models are actually representative of the measured data do you? Despite strong evidence that it is not the case.
But I’m sure CO2 and volcanoes explain all that you see. You just need to look at it in a certain way (that ignores reality).
“So you are saying that we should not trust the model outputs as they are all too hot?”
No. I’m saying that you should not expect the ensemble mean to accurately forecast the actual temperature.
“Yo do realize that only one model conforms to the actual data dont you?”
Yes. It’s the model run which best anticipated the actual forcings.
Since the actual forcing were towards the lower end of the ensemble range, the run which best forecast the actual temperatures has lower forcing than the ensemble mean.
> So you think
If you could refrain from mind probing, dummy, that’d be great.
Think of a clinical trial. You run one batch of test. Your results are under your simulation run average. How can you be sure that your single test shows that your simulations? You can’t.
And that’s notwithstanding the fact that the simulations are meant to be projections for 2100 and above, not say 2017. There are more uncertainties in the short term.
So no, we *really* don’t know if the models are running hot, if our satellite data are not running cold, or else. We do know however that satellite averages tend to underplay the poles.
Welcome to empirical sciences.
> that your simulations
… are wrong.
Uncertainty is nobody’s friend. It certainly isn’t contrarians’ friend, for more uncertainty means more risks, and risks carry more costs. Which means that the less certain we know about the risks of AGW, the sooner we need to invest on it.
“So you think that all of the models are actually representative of the measured data do you? Despite strong evidence that it is not the case. ”
What type of measured data?
The underlying physics is the same for every model and every model run. Specific heat and energy flow mechanisms are the same for everyone.
So is the geography, the rotation rate of the Earth, the position of coastlines etc.
IIRC all CMIP5 model runs start from 1990. They share the same measured data on albedo, CO2 concentration, volcanoes, ENSO etc up to 2005.
After 2005, the date the researchers began using CMIP5, there was no measured data on the climate variables, so the model allowed them to choose whatever they thought appropriate.
In summary, measured data on the physics of climate, and observed weather data is the same for all models up to 2005 and the same for all model runs. After 2005 the physics data is the same for all runs, but some variables are adjustable at the researchers discretion.
We know nothing about vampires either. Should we invest in defending against them?
EM: The projections run on most of the models do NOT represent the measured values that have been done since 2015. So are the models wrong or are the measurements?
“‘So you think’
If you could refrain from mind probing, dummy, thatd be great”
That assumes that you think at all and have a mind to probe.
“Its the model run which best anticipated the actual forcings”
So we should concentrate on the models that most accurately demonstrate actual measured data then.
> We know nothing about vampires either
We know more about AGW than about vampires, dummy.
We know everything there is to know about vampires.
Vampires are nothing but constructs of an over-active imagination.
Much like AGW and climate models.
We indeed know a lot about vampires, Kennui:
https://www.thestar.com/news/federal-election/2015/08/14/a-conservative-collection-of-harper-government-scandals.html
“We know more about AGW than about vampires”
Are you sure? Looks like we know about as much about one as the other.
Looks like your more a contrarian than you pretend, dummy.
You looking like more of an idiot is not possible.
‘So we should concentrate on the models that most accurately demonstrate actual measured data then. ”
Yes.
Which is why you should give up your insistence that the models run hot because the ensemble mean temperatures are higher than the observed temperatures.
“EM: The projections run on most of the models do NOT represent the measured values that have been done since 2015. So are the models wrong or are the measurements? ”
Neither. The models tell you the probable outcome of different policies.
Whether a particular policy is right or wrong is a political decision, not a scientific one.
EM: So what is the point of the models then if they do not represent the current behavior?
“The models tell you the probable outcome of different policies”
The policies adopted are based on the models as presented. If the models are continuously hot then the policies chosen based on them will be wrong in their conclusions.
> The policies adopted are based on the models as presented.
Not really, dummy. It does not matter whether it’ll be 4.5, 6.5, or 8.5 in 2100, 2150 or 2200.
If you think that models run too hot, just add a decade.
If the models are as unreliable as they are currently we could add a century with no overall change due solely to CO2.
The most accurate model (i.e. corresponds best to actual observations over all elevations) is inmcm4.
“EM: So what is the point of the models then if they do not represent the current behavior? ”
The models do represent the current behaviour, and the range of possible outcomes.
The models represent outcomes, from immediate extreme reductions in CO2 to unrestrained emissions, telling the politicians who make policy the climate consequences of their choices.
Not that it’s doing much good. The politicians are choosing the minimum mitigation and the maximum long term consequences, helped by denialist such as yourself.
Do you think so.
It seems to be still a work in progress.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/312472371_Simulation_of_the_present-day_climate_with_the_climate_model_INMCM5
Now succeeded by INM-CM5 of course as part of CIMP6.
“INM-CM5, is so good that it is the only one that diagnoses the ‘pause’ in warming from 2002 to 2014. That the ‘pause’ was real is obvious in the global surface temperature record that the that the IPCC relies upon most heavily, from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.”
“helped by denialist such as yourself”
I am not a denialist but one who observes the data as it is presented. The facts are that INM-CM5 is very close to the actual data that has been published so far. Why then would you not use it to predict the likely outcomes in the future?
“‘Its the model run which best anticipated the actual forcings’
So we should concentrate on the models that most accurately demonstrate actual measured data then.”
No. That is not what that means.
It means the models that used the actual observed amount of CO2, Methane, solar radiation, etc.
In some cases it may mean ALSO those that had an ENSO pattern close to the historical one.
This is reasonable because human emissions are not know ahead of time.
ENSO is a significant internal cycle that is highly unpredictable ahead of time, but measurable after.
INM-CM5 also takes into account CO2, Methane, solar radiation, etc.
So why, given that it also replicates the measured temperatures, is it not more accurate than those that don’t?
And yet, predicting the future state of the atmosphere, even with complete knowledge of an initial state, is impossible in any useful sense.
Cultist faith cannot make the uncertainty principle go away. And the application of the uncertainty principle to the movement of the atmosphere rapidly leads to the certainty that predicting the future state of the atmosphere is impossible.
Or, as the IPCC has stated previously, assuming that the atmosphere acts chaotically, then by definition, the prediction of future climate states is not possible.
There is no known physical basis for claiming that it is possible to predict future weather, and hence climate. Banging on about “probability distribution functions” sounds sciency, but is the sort of things spruiked by clueless charlatans, who imply that temperatures can be measured in W/m2!
The IPCC is a completely useless organisation, providing a platform to delusional cultists who apparently believe that extreme weather is the result of “climate change” or similar stupidities.
If you must appeal to authority, maybe one based on facts rather than fantasy might help.
Mike Flynn,
Maniacal Function.
I have been reading where some want to convert from a Carbon energy system to a hydrogen one. I wonder if this is logical. You replace mild GHG with a much more potent one?
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2008/02/common-climate-misconceptions-the-water-vapor-feedback-2/
Doubling CO2 would result in 1 to 1.2 C warming over time. The WV feedback would add an additional 1.6 C warming.
In the article they point out WV, since it condenses, alone would not result in warming it has to have a forcing (like warmer atmosphere). It would seem if we used hydrogen in place of hydrocarbon fuels (which have produce some WV and some CO2) we would continue to add WV or force more into the air than would naturally be there. It seems this would be like adding a worse GHG to eliminate a lesser one. As it stands now, WV may have some added heating effect but it also has cooling effects like evaporation and clouds. If the WV is produced in drier areas like California and the SW deserts it will just add to the atmospheric WV content without benefit of cloud production or any cooling via evaporation. Just wondering if such a move would be logical in the long run it you are trying to reduce GHG?
I doubt the hydrogen economy would make much difference to the water content of the atmosphere.
Burning hydrocarbons and burning hydrogen both release water and a rapid water cycle means that it doesn’t stay long in the atmosphere.
Entropic man
Are you sure that the burning of hydrocarbons releasing H2O in places that normally would not have it, is not part of the cause of the increase in water vapor content?
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth103/node/558
If it is assumed that mankind is the cause for the increase in CO2 (with all its sources and sinks) why is it not also assumed that continuous burning of hydrocarbons is not responsible at least for some of the increase in water vapor content (forcing).
Methane combustion gives one CO2 for every 4 H2O. The major component of petrol.
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-chemical-formula-of-petrol
It has 8 carbon atoms to 18 hydrogen atoms. Water vapor is a much bigger player in GHE than CO2. Why would scientists assume the CO2 we put into the atmosphere will just linger for 1000 years when there are multiple sinks to absorb it. I am not sure I agree with residence time. Not even sure how this can be determined in a scientific way since many things emit and absorb CO2 in the environment.
It costs a lot to crack water in order to obtain Hydrogen. Hydrogen isn’t a viable fuel because it costs more energy to make it than the energy you get back when you burn it. That is a significant difference from CO2 based fuels.
Once the plebs figure out Neptune is covered with Frozen Hydrogen it won’t take long before people figure out how to haul it back to earth.
Using Hydrogen from Neptune you really would be adding to the water vapour in the atmosphere.
Ken
My point is that Water Vapor contribution to GHE is 4-5 times stronger than CO2. Not a small amount like 10% more, rather more like 400 to 500% more potent.
Hydrocarbon fuel is emitting far more Water Vapor than CO2. It is forcing it into the atmosphere above and beyond the normal routes of evaporation. No evaporative cooling of the surface occurs when hydrocarbon fuel is combusted so you lose that which is considerable around 86 W/m^2 on the global energy budgets. In dry regions like the Southwest US with its large cities, you also do not get the cooling effect of cloud production to reflect incoming sunlight.
Since more H2O is forced into the air with hydrocarbon combustion than CO2 you should logically conclude that some of the warming is caused by the water vapor forcing (continuously adding more so even with rainfall in some places you keep pumping in an additional amount).
Norman, 4-5 times nothing is still NOTHING.
Clint R
Whatever you have to believe troll. If your opinions comfort you and give you a feeling of superiority, so be it. They are not at all interesting to me. Troll on. I care not about your posts.
Wrong again, Norman.
Zero multiplied by any other number is zero. That’s not my opinion, that is reality.
And how can you possibly deny your interest in me when you respond in 8 minutes, and spend hours composing hateful, inaccurate, deceptive comments trying to discredit the reality I bring to you.
PS Where’s that “real 255K surface” your hero has you convinced of?
Clint R
Whatever makes you happy troll.
Clint R
Just because I choose to respond to your posts does not indicate that I am interested in your opinions.
norman…”Doubling CO2 would result in 1 to 1.2 C warming over time. The WV feedback would add an additional 1.6 C warming”.
***
Not a shred of scientific evidence to support that propaganda.
…because Gordon, among others, hasn’t done the work to find, learn, and understand climate basics from a reliable source.
This has become Braindead4’s standard response when trapped in their nonsense. Norman is funnier because he links to things he can’t understand.
Neither can answer a straight question.
They’ve got NOTHING.
Better for Clint R and Gordon to answer their own questions consulting a reliable source – I recognize though both prefer to humor the blog admitting they haven’t done the work to learn & understand climate.
Ball4
You are correct on the behavior of the these two posters. They offer opinions endlessly but are not able to provide any evidence for what they claim. You can ask them to and they still will not.
Troll Clint R has hundreds if not thousands of contributions to this blog and I do not think any of his opinions are supported. He just declares the same things over and over.
“Ball on String”
“Fluxes don’t add”
etc. Same old garbage just different days. Gordon will provide a little evidence sometimes. Mostly he offers his opinions on things, but a bit better than Clint R.
It has been years and neither has taken you advice to read actual textbooks on the topic.
Ball4 and Norman, when you’re finished projecting your own failures on others, how about identifying your “real 255K surface”?
Still can’t find the answer Clint R? It’s so easy to find others can read you are having to ask thus admit you haven’t understood even the basic physics of climate & your comments on the subject are thus not at all credible.
ball4….”because Gordon, among others, hasnt done the work to find, learn, and understand climate basics from a reliable source”.
***
Perhaps you’d like to explain how CO2 causes warming in the atmosphere. I am not talking about CO2 absorbing IR emissions from the surface, I’m talking about the physics that shows how it transfers the heat created from absorp-tion of IR to the other 99.96% of atmospheric gases to raise their temperature.
I have already demonstrated, using the Ideal Gas Law, how CO2, at best, could contribute no more than 0.04C for each 1C warming of the atmosphere. You have failed to rebut that argument or offer an alternative explanation.
Of course, you’re still confused about heat. You think heat is a measure of energy transfer without specifying the energy being transferred, which is heat. Therefore, based on your logic, heat is a measure of the transfer of heat. You fail to understand that temperature is a measure of heat transfer.
Until you understand these basics of thermodynamics you will always be confused about the heating effect of CO2.
The IGL is an equation of state Gordon. The IGL is not an eqn. to use to determine a change of state; that is what the 1LOT energy balance eqn. accomplishes in field of climate.
“Perhaps you’d like to explain how CO2 causes warming in the atmosphere.”
You won’t understand my explanation, Gordon, as you have demonstrated in writing on this blog, at least until you have successfully accomplished the relevant course of study in climate physics from a reliable source.
I do not think heat is a transfer of energy – those are your words not mine; heat is a measure of the total KE of an object’s constituent molecules.
Temperature is a measure of the avg. KE of an object’s constituent molecules at the measurement site.
Gordon Robertson
Your point “Not a shred of scientific evidence to support that propaganda.”
The graph Roy Spencer provides monthly is scientific evidence of warming. If something is warming there must be a reason.
Neither you nor the troll here can understand that if you insulate (slow down heat loss rate) a heated object it will warm. There does not seem to be any rational way to get you to understand this. Posters could give you endless evidence and it will not change your view one iota. You are ingrained in your false beliefs to such a degree that evidence is no longer of any value. Only your belief matters.
But Roy Spencer does not just provide a graph (which is evidence) but he also offers his analysis.
Roy Spencer: “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).”
So if you accept what Roy is doing then you would agree the globe is warming. Only way to warm a heated surface is to add more energy or restrict the amount able to leave. If neither of these are done, the globe will not warm. Saying it is a recovery from the Little Ice Age is most meaningless. Things do not just cool and warm. I suggest you take Ball4’s good advice and read some actual science textbooks and get away from the dishonest lying blog material you are consuming. It is truly junk science at its worst and you are eating it up without questioning it.
norman…”Gordon Robertson…Your point Not a shred of scientific evidence to support that propaganda.”
***
Cherry-pick alert!!!
Here’s what I was protesting, as written by you…
“Doubling CO2 would result in 1 to 1.2 C warming over time. The WV feedback would add an additional 1.6 C warming”.
Gordon Robertson
I can give you evidence of that claim as well but you won’t accept it at all so why do you pretend you want evidence? You believe what you want to and reject anything that does not support your limited view of reality.
I have attempted to give valid evidence to others with no success and you would be no different. You are not the level of intentional troll like Clint R but you are embedded in contrarian belief and not interested in evidence based science.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/tmp/surfrad_61a44dd9dbac3.png
I have spent time working to educate the contrarians on GHE. I attempted the lunatic Joseph Postma but he is so embedded in his religion that no rational content will change his mind.
Look at the graph. Calculate on your own. Since you claim to be an engineer it will be very easy for you to calculate total energy received by a square meter of desert surface and the total energy lost. First just use the solar input and subtract out the surface emission (upwelling longwave radiation). If you spend time on the math you will find that the incoming radiant energy is not sufficient to sustain the rate of energy loss.
If you add the greenhouse gas emission to the surface you now have a surplus of energy to maintain the emission rate. Other heat transfer mechanisms come into play to keep the surface at a lower temperature.
So when you say there is not a shred of evidence you are just stating and invalid opinion. The evidence is against this. I know it will never change you or the trolls on this blog. I keep hoping it will, a light will come on in the darkened mind of a religious fanatic (your religion is contrarian views to all infromation) but it never does.
Norman, you’re still making the same mistakes with that link. You’re still trying to use “solar net”. That’s NOT how you do it. Reflected solar is out of it. It’s no longer a factor.
That’s just one of your mistakes. Go back and find where I have tried to help you with this before.
What caused the Little Ice Age then?
Hypothesis
A change in solar activity caused the little ice age.
Why?
Weakening Earth Sun electro/magnetic results in volcanoes.
Weakening solar irradiance means less UV and Xray impacting upper atmosphere thereby shrinking upper atmosphere. Wavier Jet Stream means more extreme weather events. More extreme weather means higher insolation at 60N.
Lower solar activity means higher cosmic rays. Cosmic rays cause clouds. Clouds reflect more sunlight.
A collection of solar and oceanic cycles all combining to cause cooling.
Yeah, its all hypothesis.
Watching the extreme weather events. Fires in India, Dust in Tashkent, Heavy Flooding in China, Record Snow in Japan, Fierce Storms in Gulf of Alaska, Flooding in British Columbia and Nova Scotia, Flooding in UK, Flooding in Europe. Its all similar to anecdotes from start of the LIA. So maybe we are living the ‘dream’.
RLH, Read my post AND the references I included:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-1035897
A continuous downslope until the Little Ice Age cannot be solely due to volcanoes.
William Happer’s paper says doubling CO2 from 400 to 800 ppm will result in 1.5C warming. He shows lots of evidence based on radiation transfer theory.
Dullard…”Akasofu simply eyeballed a linear trend in some ocean cycle and proclaimed that its natural variability. This is so silly that even Dana can refute that:”
***
You have the temerity to compare the opinion of an idiot from skepticalscience with a bona fide, world-renowned physicist like Akasofu.
Just to remind you, skepticalscience is the site where their leader thought it hilarious to dress up as a Nazi. He initially passed himself off as a ‘solar physicist’, meaning he had a Ph.D in the field. Turns out he has an undergrad degree and works as a cartoonist.
But never mind that, let’s see what physicist Lubos Motl has to say about SkS, after they tried to impersonate him in an unfavourable light.
In other words, Dullard, you are a scumbag who supports scumbag sights like SkS, Desmogblog, and the likes.
https://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/john-cook-skeptical-science.html
> a bona fide, world-renowned physicist
Cmon, Gordo.
That is what appealing to an authority looks like.
***
> skepticalscience is the site where their leader thought it hilarious to dress up as a Nazi
C’mon, Gordo.
That is what an ad hominem.
Think.
swenson…”The IPCC is a completely useless organisation…”
***
Hear, hear!!!
The parent organization, the UN, has proved itself absolutely useless since its inception. Their main mandate is world peace and they have failed miserably. They are so stupid, they fell for an intentional con-job by then UK PM Margaret Thatcher. The thrust of her speech to the UN had nothing to do with global warming/climate change, it was a bs concoction aimed at making coal seem undesirable so she could get control of the British coal miners.
Thatcher, who had a degree in chemistry, conned the UN into believing emissions from coal could lead to global warming so the UN set up the IPCC to investigate. However, the only mandate they gave the IPCC was to find evidence of man-made (anthropogenic) warming.
Thatcher had her protege, John Houghton, established as the first co-chair of the IPCC and he, being a climate modeler, steered the IPCC in the direction of ‘prediction’ based on unvalidated models. It was pointed out later by expert reviewer, Vincent Gray, that unvalidated models cannot predict.
So, here we are, with a political organization lying to everyone and getting away with it because their masters, the politicians, are too stupid or too devious to know better.
Swenson was gone for a week or two. I’m glad he’s back.
With Swenson back, blog entertainment HAS increased. Swenson is a challenger to Clint R’s chief laughing stock status though so watch out Clint – you could lose your hard earned title.
> Thatcher had her protege, John Houghton, established as the first co-chair of the IPCC and he, being a climate modeler,
C’mon, Gordo:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-020-0801-5
You might as well argue that Roy is a climate modeller.
Think.
This would be the deluded individual who ” . . .fought on the world stage to save the planet from harmful climate change, . . .”.
John Houghton turned out to be incompetent –
“A successful term as Director General usually earns a decoration; however, this was placed in jeopardy when in October 1987 a great storm, which the Met Office failed to forecast properly, struck the south of England and caused awful damage. There were calls for Johns head, or at least his job, on the floor of Parliament, . . .”
Dang. Nature was less impressed with John Houghton than he was with himself. With people like him at the helm, no wonder the BBC dumped the Met Office as a supplier of weather forecasts!
Wee Willy might as well appeal to the authority of Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, or himself.
That would be this guy –
“A successful term as Director General usually earns a decoration; however, this was placed in jeopardy when in October 1987 a great storm, which the Met Office failed to forecast properly, struck the south of England and caused awful damage. There were calls for John’s head, or at least his job, on the floor of Parliament, . . . ”
Wee Willy makes some bizarre “appeals to authority”.
The same person who Wee Willy admires ” . . .fought on the world stage to save the planet from harmful climate change, . . .”
Once again, about as successful as Don Quixote tilting at windmills.
Mike Flynn,
Misfired Felicity,
Here’s how grown-ups quote and cite:
https://www.metlink.org/resource/case-study-great-storm/
Not even a nice try!
Sky Dragon Cranks expect better than that!
Cheers.
maguff…”The IPCC does not undertake any research of its own. Its role is to examine all the available peer-reviewed evidence …”
***
This a lie in itself. It was revealed in the Climategate email scandal that top lead-authors at the IPCC were determining which papers would be reviewed. Phil Jones(of Had-crut), a Coordinating Lead Author, bragged that he and his partner ‘Kevin’ (presumably Kevin Trenberth of NCAR) would block entry of certain skeptic papers to the IPCC. They followed through on that threat, blocking a paper co-authored by John Christy of UAH.
Even if such papers get through, and the main body of reviewers review them, the final say comes down to 50 politically-appointed lead authors who write the Summary of Policymakers. The Summary is released first, then the main review of 2500 reviewers is AMENDED to reflect the Summary.
For example, when the iconic statement was released in the Summary that it is 90% likely that humans are causing global warming, the main report did not claim that. Most of them wanted to wait and see what developed. They were over-ruled by the 50 lead authors. Several reviewers submitted complaints, which were reviewed and dismissed.
In other words, the IPCC are a load of politically-motivated cheaters.
> blocking a paper co-authored by John
C’mon, Gordo.
You haven’t read the emails, have you?
Read. Then think.
Wandering Wee Willy,
Still trying to get someone to dance to your grating discordance, are you?
Good luck with trying to get anyone with a brain to take advice from a powerless, impotent, anonymous troll.
Do you believe you have amazing super powers, perhaps? Hurling lightning bolts down upon the heads of unbelievers? Striking them dead where they stand, with the power of your intellect?
If your brains were dynamite, you wouldn’t have enough to blow your nose.
Carry on.
Mike Flynn,
Mike Flynn, everyone!
*The crowd goes wild.*
> Zero multiplied by any other number is zero. Thats not my opinion, that is reality.
Pup has a WEIRD concept of reality:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_to_the_power_of_zero
Wacky Wee Willy,
Easy to prove who has a “. . . WEIRD concept of reality. . . . ”
Just produce a number which when multiplied by zero, produces a non-zero result.
Maybe you are confused by the difference between multiplication and exponentiation involving zero. Or just ignorant.
Mike Flynn,
Mathematical Fusillade,
Formal properties might not exist independently of the mind, and concepts like exponentiation and empty product go beyond what you learned in high school algebra classes.
Stick to silly gaslighting!
Oh! Oh! Oh!
Wacky Wee Willy,
Again, just produce a number which when multiplied by zero, produces a non-zero result. Or just try to wriggle and obfuscate your way out of looking like the dimwit you are.
By the way, does your “Oh! Oh! Oh” indicate that you achieved a successful conclusion to your self-abuse exercise?
Mike Flynn,
Metamorphic Frock,
Even if the null factor law was a universal one, it would still not be a law of nature. And in contrast to what Pup suggests, reality is only about laws of nature!
Swoon.
Is n+n equal to 2*n?
Is n*n equal to 2^n?
Is 0+0 equal to 0?
Is 0*0 equal to 0?
If so what is 0^0 and why?
0^0=1
Get out a calculator and try .9^.9, then
.8^.8
.7^.7
.1^.1
.01^.01
.001^.001
etc, and see what happens.
I know what calculators can be programmed to do. Now justify it using the above observations.
If a ring which satisfies the zero-product property is called a domain, dummy, do you think that the only valid rings in mathematics are domains?
Consistency in arithmetic operators and their outcomes would be nice.
Did you know that there are are 2453 commutative unital semirings of size at most 6 satisfying 2+2=5, dummy?
Do you know that you are 100% an idiot?
No U, dummy?
z
“Since more H2O is forced into the air with hydrocarbon combustion than CO2 you should logically conclude that some of the warming is caused by the water vapor forcing (continuously adding more so even with rainfall in some places you keep pumping in an additional amount).”
Does the idiot who wrote this earlier really think that adding water vapour to the atmosphere above arid tropical deserts will make them hotter?
Obviously not. Climate crackpots don’t think – they just regurgitate whatever the current cult leader has decreed.
Swenson
Yes it will at some point. More water vapor will emit more IR back to the surface (at similar temperature than previous levels) which will lower the amount of Heat (net energy) the surface is losing via radiant heat transfer.
Not sure why you think actual science (not your misguided opinions) is idiotic. I guess I can’t change your view.
Here:
http://climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
The downwelling IR (no clouds) is 269.004 W/m^2 for a Standard Atmosphere looking up with a unit of 1 for water vapor. If you double this amount you get 296.636 W/m^2 for downwelling IR.
The difference is 27.63 W/m^2. Based upon standard physics (1st Law) you could easily expect that having more energy returned to the surface will result in a warmer surface is all other conditions remain the same. Not sure why you are convinced this is and idiotic idea. Do you have any evidence to support your conclusion on this or are you just making an unfounded and ignorant opinion like troll Clint R does all the time.
Wrong again, Norman.
I’ve discussed this before. Go and read my comment. You’re still making the same mistakes.
The same energy returning to where if was emitted can NOT warm it. You’re still trying to heat something with ice cubes to a higher temperature than the ice cubes! That ain’t science.
Next, you’ll be trying to boil water with ice cubes, like your other cult hero.
Clint R
Your unscientific opinion is that a surface that emits a band of IR in not able to absorb it. Roy Spencer set up an experiment proving it certainly does. The evidence is against your opinion (also all current accepted science which you can find it you do any reading).
Your conclusion that a surface that absorbs returning IR is like ice boiling water is not even remotely valid. You have been told why so many times.
The returning energy is less than the emitted energy. But the returning energy lowers the NET heat loss of the surface. There is an incoming amount of solar input energy (which is given if graphs I showed Gordon). If the radiant heat loss (NET energy loss) of the surface is greater than the incoming solar the surface cools (night). If the reduced heat loss (NET energy) is now less than the incoming solar the surface warms to a new higher equilibrium temperature. Insulation is used to explain it since it is very similar in logic.
Wrong again, Norman. You’re still confusing flux with energy. You’ve never had any formal training in thermodynamics. You can’t understand even the simplest analogies. Ice can’t warm anything above its temperature; A simple rotisserie explains how Sun warms Earth; and a ball-on-a-string is a model of “orbital motion without axial rotation”. You can’t understand any of that.
You can’t thing for yourself and you can’t learn. You’re braindead.
Nope that’s wrong Clint R as you know proven by Dr. Spencer experimentally; Clint R’s commenting is not credible it’s so humorously incorrect. Keep up the funny commenting Clint.
Clint R
Where in my post did I make any claim that ice could warm something above its temperature?
But ice will allow a heated object to reach a higher steady state temperature than if the surroundings had a lower temperature than the ice.
You don’t follow logic well. I am sure you won’t understand this post at all.
You also have NO formal training in any thermodynamics. You can’t even understand the basic fundamentals of the topic. I do possess more than you, however, as I have cracked open textbooks and read the material to gain understanding of the topic. I am indeed far superior to you in the understanding of thermodynamics and yet far below someone like Tim Folkerts. So I do not know why you would bring that point up. You know nothing about thermodynamics at all (including the basics) and you won’t read a textbook on the topic.
Norman,
I wrote before –
“Does the idiot who wrote this earlier really think that adding water vapour to the atmosphere above arid tropical deserts will make them hotter?”
I’ll double down – does the same idiot realise that the reason that arid tropical deserts (the hottest places on Earth) are hot precisely because they lack water vapour in the atmosphere above them?
Professor John Tyndall discovered the heat-blocking properties of gases like water vapour and carbon dioxide more than 150 years ago. Maybe you should read Tyndall’s publications. You seem ignorant of the well known properties of water vapour – and physics in general.
Accept reality. Reject fantasy. Learn some science.
swenson…”Maybe you should read Tyndalls publications”.
***
It was actually a pretty clever experiment he devised. It would be easy for us to reproduce it today but in his day it must have been a bother getting the parts, or even devising the means.
I did not realize till later that he also devised a clever experiment to measure the electromagnetic radiation given off by a heated object at temperature T. Stefan used his results to devise the T^4 relationship between EM intensity and temperature, hence the basic Stefan-Boltzmann equation..
Overall, a rather clever chap, eh wot?
GR,
Damn clever.
In one of Tyndall’s books, he complained that young experimenters weren’t prepared to do the boring, repetitious work involved in setting up proper experiments.
For example, Tyndall spent months calibrating a galvanometer’s null, so that it responded equally to currents flowing in either direction. The currents were miniscule, and Tyndall’s instruments would indicate temperature changes of millionths of a degree F.
Climate scientists can’t be bothered wasting their valuable time on reality. Assumption, pretense, and guesswork are their stock-in-trade. They don’t even have the time to understand what Tyndall wrote, unlike an AAAS author in 1920, who wrote of Tyndall “He thus explained the burning heat by day, followed by the enormous chilling at night, in those places that are not protected by a layer of moist air”
As in arid tropical deserts, contrary to the silliness of climate crackpots who claim that the GHG water vapour will make the deserts hotter!
Swenson
“Climate scientists cant be bothered wasting their valuable time on reality. Assumption, pretense, and guesswork are their stock-in-trade. ”
You made a slight typo in that statement. I’ll fix it for you.
“Climate change deniers cant be bothered wasting their valuable time on reality. Assumption, pretense, and guesswork are their stock-in-trade. “
Swenson
I will double down as well. You are too ignorant of science in so many ways it is hopeless to attempt rational thought with you. Continue trolling you have nothing better to do.
Heat blocking just means they absorb IR well. It also means they emit it just as well based upon the gas temperature. These are also well established science facts.
Norman,
Bananas absorb and emit IR. So does nitrogen.
You are a delusional climate crank. Everything in the universe above absolute zero emits IR. Well established scientific fact which you appear to ignore.
Read what Tyndall wrote, if you feel like it. Or ignore it, if it doesn’t fit with your fantasy.
Yes, N2 can emit IR. But it is about 1 millionth as effective as that banana.
I am sure you know that different objects have different emissivities. CO2 has an emissivity on the order of 0.1 (depending on temperature, concentration, etc).
It turns out that some gases like N2 have an emissivity that is — for all practical purposes — 0. Oh it might be 0.0001 (but I doubt it is even that high). In any case, when calculating the IR emitted by earth and its atmosphere, you can completely ignore N2 and still get and answer that is 99.9% right.
norman…”if you insulate (slow down heat loss rate) a heated object it will warm. There does not seem to be any rational way to get you to understand this”.
***
There is no rational way of convincing me what you say is true because it is not.
A heated object that has no means of maintaining its heat, will always become cooler as its heat is dissipated. If you insulate it, the object will cool more slowly but it cannot increase its heat level unless you replace the heat it loses.
However, if you have an internally heated object and you allow it to establish thermal equilibrium with its environment, it will stabilize at a certain temperature. That is heat in = heat lost to dissipation.
If you take the same object and insulate it to slow its rate of conduction to the environment and/or you interfere with the convection of air around it, the object will warm. That’s because it is receiving more heat than it can dissipate. It reaches a state of equilibrium with its environment at a higher temperature where heat in = heat lost to dissipation.
That’s what was wrong with the conclusion Swannie reached with his experiments. He claimed a cooler object was transferring heat to a hotter object, causing the hotter object to get warmer. What he missed is that he interfered with the convection in one experiment and the radiation in the experiment in a vacuum. Therefore the hotter body got hotter because its rate of heat dissipation became lower.
Gordon Robertson
You need to be a somewhat rational before any hope of communication with you is possible.
You make a very dumb statement. Perhaps reconsider it. It is totally wrong and without any rational thought, just a quickly formed opinion.
YOU: “A heated object that has no means of maintaining its heat, will always become cooler as its heat is dissipated. If you insulate it, the object will cool more slowly but it cannot increase its heat level unless you replace the heat it loses.”
I think you believe maybe I am talking about a “hot” object like a hot tub of water. NO I am saying a heated object, one that has a constant source of new energy flowing into it like the burner on your stove or water in you water heater. If you insulate a water heater while it is heating, it will reach a higher temperature then if no insulation is on it and it is out in very cold weather.
Gordon, at work we have large 480 volt IR heaters. Inside the coils will glow brightly, outside in winter they are dull. The coils are not as hot. If you insulate them they will reach a higher temperature and if good enough insulation they may burn out the coil.
You also offer another unthinking opinion on matters of heat transfer. A cold object does transfer energy to a hot one. You are wrong about that but evidence will not change you. You can perform any heat transfer experiment in vacuum conditions and then your conduction or convection point is lost. Insulation can warm in a vacuum as well. Why keep giving these unthoughtful opinions and actually read something beyond blogs.
Norman
Living in Europe I tend to be out of phase with this American site, hence the delayed reply.
“If it is assumed that mankind is the cause for the increase in CO2 (with all its sources and sinks) why is it not also assumed that continuous burning of hydrocarbons is not responsible at least for some of the increase in water vapor content (forcing).”
CO2 is currently being emitted at 4ppm equivalent and removed by sinks at 2ppm. The overall rate of increase is 2ppm/year and accelerating.
Let’s be optimistic.We stop emitting at 560ppm. At 2ppm/year it takes 280/2=140 years to return to the preindustrial 280ppm. CO2 returns to equilibrium over a timescale of centuries.
Now suppose we release an equivalent amount of water vapour. The water cycle is in equilibrium at about a average of 70% relative humidity worldwide. Weather systems pick up evaporating water and precipitate it within weeks.
When we emit CO2 it hangs around for centuries and has a large warming effect. When we add water it leaves the atmosphere within weeks and does not have much effect.
There is an increase in water vapour with increasing global temperature, but it is due to a shift in the equilibrium, the amount of water the atmosphere can hold. It is not due to us adding more from car exhausts.
Entropic man
It does not matter the time frame water vapor will leave if you keep a constant renewal via combustion.
You are forcing water vapor into the air above evaporation. This can actually cause a percent of the observed global warming which produces more evaporation.
The combustion of hydrocarbons would be a forcing. It should be greater than any effect CO2 has on warming since water vapor is 4 to 5 times stronger GHG and also you release more water vapor in combustion than CO2 with both methane and petrol. Coal is a little less but coal is 30% or so water so burning it still produces 30% water vapor to the CO2.
The residence time of each gas would not matter on the point of discussion. With hydrocarbon combustion you are continuously adding water vapor to the air at a generally far greater rate than CO2 and water vapor is a much more potent GHG. It does not flow logically that the CO2 added is causing all the warming but the water vapor addition does nothing.
You say the water we add leaves in weeks. I disagree. The water we added weeks ago will leave but the human race keeps adding more and with the large increase in Natural Gas turbines you are not just adding the same amount of water vapor you are increasing it. We are forcing more water vapor into the air than would be there so how come that is not evaluated as a warming effect even greater than any carbon dioxide release.
Gordo still can’t understand my experiments, including work with an evacuated bell jar. He wrote:
In those situations, the heated plate must eventually “dissipate” all the energy it receives. If not, it’s temperature will increase to the point that it’s emissions equal the energy input. In a high vacuum, convection is minimized, thus leaving radiation as the main path for energy loss. Simply changing the position of the Green plate results in “back radiation”, thus increasing the energy input to the Blue plate and the Blue plate’s temperature increases until a new steady state is achieved.
I believe James Hansen is an astrophysicist, as is Wee Willy’s mate, Ken Rice – Carl Sagan also.
All delusional. Just like TM’s apparent “authority”, who states “The basic science behind global warming is firmly established. The connection between observed temperature and atmospheric CO2 increase is much more than sheer supposition.”
Neither this nutter nor any other can even state where the GHE may be observed, measured, and documented, let alone formulate a testable hypothesis to explain anything not in accord with current knowledge.
Given that conversion of carbon to carbon dioxide involves the giving off of heat, the connection between observed temperature and CO2 can be rewritten as a connection between observed temperature and increased heat – much more likely?
Maybe TM could find a better authority to use. One who actually knows what he is talking about. He recommends reading a book by R Pierrehumbert, who wrote “Carbon dioxide is just planetary insulation.” Insulation provides no heat at all, and is probably more widely used to keep heat out, (as in refrigeration, firemen’s protective clothing etc, the Earth’s surface), than to keep heat in. Cooling, rather than heating.
Which is why a bowl of boiling water placed in direct sunlight cools down, rather than heating up – not enough IR reaching the bowl. Insulated from the Sun by the atmosphere. Simple enough for a 12 year old to understand, but climate crackpots are deranged. No understanding possible.
Swenson at 6:38 AM
Comments in your reply to my OP prove the central thesis of the cited article better than its author could have dreamt.
There was a time when the only pedagogical sources for radiative transfer were found in the field of Astrophysics, most notably Chandrasekhar’s https://www.imsc.res.in/~office/chandrayana/paper/rajaram.pdf. But thankfully, starting in the 1980s and continuing through the last decade, several textbooks have been published for undergraduate and graduate students offering a thorough treatment of the physics of emission, absorp_tion, scattering, and the equation of radiative transfer. Interested readers can now find physical insight, mathematical formalism, and tie the microscopic to the macroscopic, according to their preferences and needs.
Thanks for your participation.
One could say that the big global climate changes are glacial to interglacial and back to glacial.
CO2 level are affected by such climate change but in terms of causing warming, CO2 plays no role in causing a glacial period to warm. Only if assume Low CO2 levels cause warming that I could imagine the lowest CO2 levels are causing warming.
What is more reasonable is something causes the oceans to warm, and a warmed ocean emits more CO2. Or CO2 levels are not causal rather they are the effect of warming.
A smaller scale of global climate change, such century long warming periods and cooling periods of recent Little Ice Age also not caused CO2 levels.
And no credible person has ever said how much warming has already occurred from the recent rise in CO2.
If said all of it, you are indicating a lack understanding of the issue. Similar to a claim you have proof of space aliens.
Or lot people have hobby of suggesting there is some evidence of space aliens. But it is a certainty that there is no evidence of space aliens. But let’s look at article:
“When a greenhouse molecule absorbs an infrared photon, the molecule rotates or vibrates faster and is said to be in an “excited” state. At low gas densities, an excited greenhouse gas molecule will spontaneously (by the rules of quantum mechanics) reradiate an infrared photon, which may escape the atmosphere into space and produce no net warming.”
Well, low density is less air. When there is less air, there is less CO2. If anyone knew warming effect of CO2, then one would not say “low density” one would say what the density is.
Or what density is low density.
There is low density a 1000 meter above me, also low density 20,000 meter above me.
So, have demonstrated one has accepted fuzzy a picture proof of Big Foot, and…
“At the higher densities of Earth’s atmosphere, the excited molecule will bump into (collide with) another molecule (any molecule in the atmosphere). In the collision, the energized greenhouse gas molecule loses its rotational energy, which is transferred to the kinetic energy of the molecule it collides with (this is called collisional de-excitation). The increased kinetic energies of the colliding molecules means that the molecules are moving faster than they were prior to the collision, and the increased velocities of such molecules represents a direct measure of increased atmospheric temperature.”
At highest density at the surface a warmed rock makes air molecules move faster. Why does matter if trace gas does the same thing. Or damp ground evaporates add more air molecules to the air, the addition of gas molecules, warms the air.
And then we oceans which are absorbing most of the energy of the sunlight, adding water vapor and warming the entire world.
Now we living in a world with low levels of CO2. Everyone knows why we have low CO2 levels, it’s because the ocean is so cold, and with average temperature of 3.5 C, the ocean can absorb and retain a vast amount of CO2.
Our cold ocean is why we are in an icehouse global climate which also call an Ice Age.
Now some idiots think the tropics gets warmer. The tropics are little changed by the large climate changes, except in one regard, deserts on tropics get wetter.
The Sahara Desert got a lot wetter during the warmest period of our Holocene and period is called the Holocene Optimum:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum
So, if tropical deserts get wetter, one gets more global water vapor.
The warming effect of CO2 is supposed to create more global water vapor.
So, if CO2 were to increase global water vapor and our tropical desert have more rainfall.
Isn’t that a good thing? Could that reason the period is called
the Holocene Optimum?
Of course, higher CO2 levels didn’t cause the Holocene Optimum, and just as higher CO2 levels have never caused any measurable amount of global warming.
There is much agreement that if Sahara Desert was made in forest,
and we didn’t clear cut these forests, it would obviously lower global CO2 level and increase global temperature.
Since this is known, why exactly are we being so stupid?
Do need more CO2, and do we need to be so cold?
We probably could mine CO2, if we needed it.
I don’t think there is much (if any) debate about the hypothesis that the glacial-interglacial climate cycles were triggered by orbital forcings, not greenhouse forcings.
The fascinating thing about all the discussions about how the moon moves it that nature provides an answer. No matter how much anyone wants one answer to be correct, we can just look at the moon and measure how it actually moves.
There seem to be three top models:
1) the COM of the moon moves in an ellipse with one face exactly toward the earth. (Like a ball sliding in and out on a rotating rigid rod)
2) the COM of the moon moves in an ellipse with one face exactly forward along the ellipse. (Like a ball bolted to on a train car on an elliptical track)
3) the COM of moon moves in an ellipse, rotating on its axis at a constant rate. (like a ball spinning on a frictionless axle mounted to a train car on an elliptical track).
These correspond respectively to 1) The arrow @ 10 o’clock, 2) the arrow at 11 o’clock, 3) the arrow at 12 o’clock. https://ibb.co/jfzjjNB
Only one of these can be correct. Unless you have studied the moon’s motion precisely to be able to distinguish the three, you are just guessing.
2) is correct.
Observations tell a different story, Clint R.
“2) is correct.”
Unless you have studied the moons motion precisely to be able to distinguish the three, you are just guessing.
Unless you know my background precisely, you are just guessing.
But, guessing is better than perverting….
We all know you are just an idiot.
Clint R does get relativity right since Clint knows if you are observing from Earth there is no moon rotation on its own axis observed since earthshine is only incident on the man in the moon face; observing from the sun however, the moon is observed to rotate on its own axis since all faces of the moon are solar illuminated.
Here is where Clint R does gets moon rotation correct, Clint should learn from Clint:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-1028184
Yet you all keep responding to him, RLH.
I respond to all idiots.
Seems like a waste of time, if you genuinely think they are idiots.
That you are a waste of time is a conclusion that I (and others) can comfortably draw.
So stop responding.
Punt.
Or option 4) the COM of the moon moves in an ellipse, whilst the moon changes orientation at a constant rate. The arrow at 12 o’clock.
As usual, the “Spinners” mistake a change in orientation, for axial rotation.
That’s where Kiddo is wrong, as usual.
pups the airhead shoots itself in the foot and agrees that the Moon rotates once an orbit with it’s Option 4. At point A, the Moon’s face points toward the Earth along the arrow. At point D, 1/4 around the orbit, the same face points toward 12 o’clock, but that arrow no longer points toward the Earth, as is obvious from the graphic, thus the view from the Earth is slightly different. The effect produces the Moon’s Librations which are the most obvious observations proving rotation at a constant rate.
…proving a change in orientation at a constant rate. As usual, the "Spinners" mistake a change in orientation, for axial rotation.
“the “Spinners” mistake a change in orientation, for axial rotation.”
And the “non-spinners” mistakenly believe that you can change orientation without axial rotation.
A wooden horse on a merry-go-round changes orientation as it rotates around the center of the merry-go-round. It is not rotating on its own axis, it is rotating around the center of the merry-go-round.
A part of something rotates in a circle around a center. Nothing like on orbit which is never a simple circle to begin with.
An object can change orientation without that being axial rotation. That was the only point I was making in my 11:29 AM comment. I don’t need an endless back and forth with you over something I’m not even arguing about, so please don’t bother.
Study up on Clint R’s correct use of relativity here DREMT and come up to speed on relativity wrt on our moon’s rotation on its own axis:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-1028184
“An object can change orientation without that being axial rotation”
No it can’t.
Yes it can, as I explained.
No it can’t.
I explained why it can, and you had nothing in response.
You explained nothing except that you are an idiot.
You have previously agreed that the wooden horse is not rotating about an axis passing through the body of the horse itself. Therefore you already tacitly agree that an object can change orientation without rotating on its own axis, whether you understand that or not. By all means, carry on arguing with yourself if you wish.
I agreed that part of a whole can rotate about an axis that is inside the whole thing.
…and thus that "part of a whole" can change orientation without rotating on its own axis.
… as observed in an accelerated frame.
#2
…and thus that "part of a whole" can change orientation without rotating on its own axis.
“4) the COM of the moon moves in an ellipse, whilst the moon changes orientation at a constant rate.”
That seems to simply be rewording (3). In any case, it leads to the same answer — the ‘arrow at 12 o’clock’ describes either of these two descriptions.
* the COM of the moon moves at varying distance and angular speeds as it moves in an ellipse around the earth (in accordance with Kepler’s Laws)
* any point on the moon changes orientation at a constant rate with respect to some specific line through the COM.
The moon’s movement is one single motion, in which the COM of the moon moves at varying distance and angular speeds as it moves in an ellipse around the Earth (in accordance with Kepler’s Laws), and the moon changes orientation at a constant rate. The moon does not rotate on its own axis.
I am still trying to wrap my head around your conclusion that this is “one motion”. The motion of the COM is described by one equation. The motion of various parts of the moon around the COM is described by a completely different equation. Only by adding together these two separate equations (for an ellipse and for a circle) can you get the full description of the moon’s motion.
Read through from here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-955740
All the way through, following the link to the ongoing discussion here:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-993881
Kiddo forgets that Tim already read it:
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-956096
DREMT should listen to Clint R about all motion is relative:
“Outside Moon’s orbit, he would see all sides of it, as it orbited. But inside the orbit, he would see only one side.”
The moon does rotate on its own axis. Once per orbit of the Earth/Moon barycenter.
Tim does his disappearing act again…
Kiddo can’t even acknowledge that Tim already spoon fed him and Flop…
It has been explained by Tim and me several times that this:
“Orbital Motion Only
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/fgwe7dsr1m”
is MISLABELED.
In the DEMO itself the math is perfectly clear to anyone who understands math and is willing to LOOK, that it is built with an equation with TWO TERMS:
One for a Keplerian elliptical ORBIT,
And another for a simple ROTATION,
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/10/uah-global-temperature-update-for-september-2021-0-25-deg-c/#comment-960198
And the two terms in the equation are SUMMED.
DREMT again IGNORES Tim’s perfectly valid point:
“Only by adding together these two separate equations (for an ellipse and for a circle) can you get the full description of the moon’s motion.”
and then wonders why Tim loses interest..
“Tim does his disappearing act again…”
…there is a lot Tim needed to catch up on, which was all posted after he left the discussion the first time, e.g:
“What you will find is that the additional cos(a) in the expression is not an obfuscated rotation, but a positional value from the external center of rotation. Now if we wanted to make the dot at 12 units rotate around (u,v); (an axial rotation) we need another rotation value like ‘s’ in the expression.”
…so I thought I would make him aware of it, here. No response from him so far.
“What you will find is that the additional cos(a) in the expression is not an obfuscated rotation, but a positional value from the external center of rotation. Now if we wanted to make the dot at 12 units rotate around (u,v); (an axial rotation) we need another rotation value like s in the expression.”
So lets review:
By itself the term in the equation for x is x = cos(a), and the term in the equation for y is y=sin(a) produces a simple circular rotation with constant angular velocity, when the angle a increases uniformly with time.
While the Keplerian orbital eqns for x,y, are
x = lcos(a)/[w +cos(a)] and
y =lsin(a)/[w +cos(a)].
This produces an elliptical orbit with a non-constant angular velocity, when a increases uniformly in time.
FTOP claims
“What you will find is that the additional cos(a) in the expression is not an obfuscated rotation, but a positional value from the external center of rotation.”
Anyone who understand basic math and has proper skepticism for what is claimed by FTOP, rather than blind acceptance of his authority, will understand that he is both wrong and dishonest here.
The first equation is for a simple rotation with constant angular velocity.
The second equation is for an elliptical orbit with varying angular velocity.
These two terms, representing very DIFFERENT motions, are summed. The result is lunar Libration, the outer/inner dots sometimes lag behind or lead ahead of the COM.
Thus his claim is FALSE.
FYI, I showed FTOP that his Kepler orbit demo has another technical issue..but thats another story.
Troll Nate, you don’t understand any of this. In ANY simulation, it is necessary to simulate gravity. That’s what is confusing you. It’s the same thing as when braindead bob tried to make a point with his basketball, claiming you would break your arm if you tried to move the basketball in an orbit with only one hand, while keeping one side facing the inside of its orbit.
You have to understand orbital motion FIRST. If you claim Moon is rotating, then you don’t understand orbital motion.
Did you solve the vector problem?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-1036240
Obsessed with Nate, Pup?
WOW.
” In ANY simulation, it is necessary to simulate gravity.”
Thanks Clint. Very informative…;)
Emission does NOT guarantee absorp.tion.
That’s true with both photons and information.
” As usual, the ‘Spinners’ mistake a change in orientation, for axial rotation. ”
Very certainly they don’t.
What will you say when somebody observes the Moon from Lagrange Point 2 with the help of James Webb in a near future, and detects that any point on the Moon moves constantly a tiny bit slower or faster than expected, according to Kepler’s laws, on a celestial body orbiting without rotational motion?
What will you then write?
"Very certainly they don’t."
Absolutely they do. Read Entropic Man’s 10:59 AM comment.
That’s where Kiddo’s wrong once again:
Implication ain’t equivalence.
Bindidon remains braindead. He STILL can’t understand orbital motion vs. rotation. Outside Moon’s orbit, he would see all sides of it, as it orbited. But inside the orbit, he would see only one side. He can’t figure it out.
And Willard is just as uninformed. Certainly an orbiting object can change directions without axial rotation. That’s the advantage of a simple example like the ball-on-a-string. It changes direction without axial rotation, just like Moon.
But the braindead can’t understand “simple”.
Simple is what you are, not the rest of us.
Clint R, you should try to teach that concept of relativity to DREMT.
"And Willard is just as uninformed"
Willard and Ball4 are just tedious, relentless trolls, with nothing of value to contribute. You may as well just ignore them completely, as I don’t think anyone rational takes their comments seriously.
DREMT: No-one takes you seriously either.
Stop responding to me then.
I’d ask you to stop being an idiot, but that would be too much I suspect.
B4,
You have to understand the concept of equivalence to understand relativity. You don’t.
> But inside the orbit, he would see only one side.
That’s a weak “would,” Pup. Everybody knows that we always see the Man in the Moon.
Three years for that silly argument.
I note you responded to me again, RLH…
When you stop posting I will stop responding.
You’re that obsessed with me? Wow.
It is my mission to contradict idiots.
Obsessive and abusive. What a combo.
Idiocy like yours doesn’t need something to combine with.
We’ve already established that you’re abusive. No need for you to keep demonstrating your flaws.
It has been shown numerous times that the braindead cult idiots don’t understand the relevant science. They just mouth their cult’s dogma. It’s fun to see them run from an actual physics problem:
An orbiting object moves in a perfect circle. Looking down, the object is moving CCW, and at the “top” of its orbit the vectors acting on it are 50@180°, and 10@-90°.
After orbiting 90 degrees, what is the resultant vector acting on the object?
I predict Willard, Bindidon, Norman, Willard Jr. (Swanson), and bob will not even attempt an answer.
That’s why this is so much fun.
“An orbiting object moves in a perfect circle”
No it doesn’t. It moves in an ellipse about the barycenter of 2 or more objects.
A circle IS an ellipse, RLH. A circle is an ellipse with zero eccentricity.
You won’t understand because you’re braindead.
Pup,
Pup,
Flop’s TRICK rests on the converse: trying to pass an ellipse as a circle. That’s the FAST ONE he was trying to pull.
Do the POLL Dance Experiment.
Do the POLL dance experiment.
If he does, guaranteed to have a pardner’.
You’re not supposed to know the word “pardner,” Pozzo.
But you ought to know that I alternate spellings.
bob,
Do you think using foul language will make people respect you?
You could always ask for clarification, if you weren’t such a foul-mouthed ignorant fool.
Too hard for you, I suppose.
Mike Flynn,
Misidentified Fork.
Misgendered fuck.
Oops, Swenson really thought it was a female.
” I predict Willard, Bindidon, Norman, Willard Jr. (Swanson), and bob will not even attempt an answer. ”
Why should I not answer?
My answer is that you weren’t even able to understand what I wrote above at at 11:55 AM.
Btw: my brain is, as opposed to yours, perfectly alive.
Braindead-idon, where are all your links to astrologers from centuries ago? That’s you usual invalid response.
You don’t understand any of the physics involved.
You are the one who doesn’t understand physics.
It’s a stupid fucking question because you didn’t specify what kind of vector.
Force?
Acceleration?
Angular momentum?
Obviously the “teacher” didn’t do his homework.
That’s irrelevant here, braindead bob. But thanks for verifying my prediction.
So Clint R,
please clarify what kind of vector is it, Victor?
bob,
Do you think using foul language will make people respect you?
You could always ask for clarification, if you werent such a foul-mouthed ignorant fool.
Too hard for you, I suppose.
Swenson,
What’s fucking foul about my language?
Are you offended?
Yet insults are ok with you, especially since you don’t know what the fuck you are going on about.
bob,
I generally decline to feel offended, and you are sufficiently impotent and powerless that I am not inclined to make an exception in your case.
As I say, if you think that obscenities and foul language are likely to engender respect in relation to anything you might say, then you are just another idiotic climate crank.
As to insults, why do you bother feeling insulted? Does it make you feel better in yourself?
Once you have decided that indecent language is not exactly increasing the number of converts to your cause, you might try introducing some verifiable facts.
You could start off by showing where the “GHE” may be reliably observed, measured and documented.
Ho, ho, ho!
I have already explained to you where the green house effect can be observed.
Compare the graph at the top of the page with the Keeling curve and note the correlation.
And before you say correlation is not causation, I can provide the mechanism, which I have already explained to you.
Repeat lessons cost 50 bucks more than the free original lesson already provided.
I chew my cabbage twice, but only if paid the going rate.
Now fuck off, smartly, if you will.
But you can’t do anything smartly.
“An orbiting object moves in a perfect circle. ”
We could hypothesize such a perfect orbit.
“Looking down, the object is moving CCW, and at the “top” of its orbit …”
OK. We are considering first the point when the object is at ’12o’clock’. Moving toward the left.
“the vectors acting on it are 50@180, and 10@-90.”
And now you lost me. Which “vectors”? 50 N of force? 50 m/s of velocity? 50 kg*m/s of momentum? Some dimensionless quantity?
Usually when people talk about a vector “acting on” an object they mean “force”. But there is no force forward (ie toward the left, ie 180 degrees in standard designation). Vectors like position, velocity, and momentum ‘describe’ properties of an object, they don’t ‘act on’ an object.
This is the first time since 1977 that there were no major hurricanes during the month of October anywhere across the globe.
Your conclusion on this?
Conclusion? The claim of more frequent and more violent storms is not supported by the data.
Ken
The evidence available does support your conclusion. Regardless of media bias the science is not there to support a position that global warming is leading to worse hurricanes. Journalism at its worst. Selling an idea as scientific without supplying the evidence, just making opinion based points like some posters on this blog are prone to do.
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/historical-atlantic-hurricane-and-tropical-storm-records/
Norman,
Maybe you could point to a single adverse effect from supposed “global warming”.
Firstly, can you show that warming is indeed “global”, and second, why do you think that “warming” is not the result of “heat”?
There is definitely more anthropogenic “heat” being produced now than 100 years ago. What proof can you advance to show that increased “heat” is not responsible for “warming”?
Unsupported assertions from self proclaimed “climate scientists” just won’t do.
Some reproducible experiments to show that additional “heat” does not result in “warming” will do.
Swenson
I am not sure what you are talking about. It seems mostly like nonsense. If you have something of value to say, say it. Your babbling nonsense does not do much for me nor do I really know what your point is. Looks like the product of a scrambled mind.
Norman, I predicted that you would not even attempt the simple physics problem above. But, I was hoping for another of your rambling tirades about how much physics you know.
Those are always funny, especially when you can’t solve easy physics problems.
Don’t forget you still haven’t identified your “real 255K surface”.
Clint R
There are 10,000 comments on Moon rotation on this blog. It is an issue that I do not want to add 20,000 more comments. You and DREMT can keep this going as long as you want, I do not find it at all interesting. It is just endless repetition of the same points over and over.
We accept your concession, Norman.
Now, where’s your “real 255K surface”. Or are you giving that perversion up also?
You’ll be a lot less frustrated when you quit trying to pervert reality.
Reality always wins.
Have you found that “Arrhenius CO2 equation yet Clint R?
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-975764
You’re confused again, TM.
It’s you that had never heard of it. Even Entropic man knows about it.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-1032657
You’re WAY behind.
Clint R at 7:45 AM
Yep, I knew you were lying about there being an “Arrhenius CO2 equation.” Just more proof (as if we needed any more!) that you’re are no more than a troll.
Clint R at 7:45 AM
Just so you know, what you believe to be the Arrhenius CO2 equation, was actually introduced by Myhre in his 1998 paper: New estimates of radiative forcing due to well mixed greenhouse gases in GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 25, NO.14.
TM, your anger is misplaced. I’m not the one that conjured up that false equation.
Maybe it’s reality that makes you so mad.
Looked at from a physics viewpoint, the Atlantic waters are warming.
The critical temperature for tropical storm formation is 26C and the higher above that, the more intense the hurricane. Warmer waters extend the hurricane season (more opportunities for hurricanes to form) and increases their average energy.
Warming alone would lead one the predict an increase in hurricane numbers and hurricane intensity in recent years.
There’s a second variable. Too much windshear across a short-lived tropical storm stops it turning into a hurricane. Climate change is increasing windshear, and aborting a larger proportion of storms.
Put ocean warming and windswept together. Higher water temperatures increase intensity and frequency. Higher windshear decreases frequency.
The current view is that climate change would be expected to increase hurricane intensity but not frequency. This is what we see in Norman’s link.
I would define a spacefaring civilization, as roughly, anyone can leave any planet as easily as “anyone” can fly from LA to New York.
So, anyone could leave Earth, or it’s within the power of any individual to leave Earth. One could say that is the current reality.
And other part of it, would it be desirable to leave Earth. So, spacefaring is any person could leave and they can have “good reasons” for wanting to do this.
I don’t want to leave Earth and I don’t want to live on Mars. Some people {perhaps millions of people} want to live on Mars.
I have said that to have people living on Mars, the price of Mars water has to be about $1 per kg [or less]. $1000 per cubic meter of water is extremely expensive water, so saying has to be $1000 per ton, for towns on Mars to be viable. And there are other factors.
One factor is what is short term and long-term effect of Mars lower gravity. We do not know.
The other thing is we don’t know if or how to live in artificial gravity. We don’t know.
We don’t know if there is life on Mars and what would human consequence of such life.
If these weren’t problems, and on Mars one could buy Mars water at $1000 per cubic meter, I would still not want to live or even visit Mars. I would be happy watch activity on Mars from comforts of Earth. That would be far more interesting than what called news today- which I sometimes interested in watching.
When people go to Mars, it will be fairly dangerous, somewhere around as dangerous as being solider in war zone. Just the danger involved would reason to be interested in it. But there would be a lot things other than the danger which would interesting.
Or there are endless ways one could make living on Mars- one way is Earthlings would be interested is what Martians are doing.
But anyhow, I am not very adventurous and I am not young and reckless- though I never wanted to be in a war zone or even wanted to jump out a plane, though I did like to ski, and watched a lot people being removed due to accidents on the slopes.
So, anyhow, I wondered what Mars would have to be like to want to go to live on Mars. Not that this is important.
So, water being $1000 per ton is needed, also part of this is that in the future, Mars water would have to be much cheaper.
So, if Mars water was $1 per ton {still more expensive than Earth water- unless bottled water is the water you are taking about} that make it more interesting in terms wanting visit or live on Mars. So, Mars may start at $1000 per ton or less in the beginning and within decades or two drop in price by more than 1/2. It’s possible to sell Mars water at lower price than it cost to “make it”. Or Mars water mining like any business starts by being in the red, and normally issue is how many years of not making money. Starlink is all in red at this point, it’s still beta testing it, but could make profit amounting trillions of dollars. Amazon was running in red for long time and etc.
So, 1 million tons at $1000 per ton is 1 billion dollar. It might cost you a few billion dollar to mine 1 million tons.
But price you ask could be $5000 per ton and $1 per ton and the decison of what price is related to your expected cost to make water in the future and how water one can sell within some time
period.
And one could sell different types of water.
You sell snow, ice, hot water, cold water, polluted water, saltwater, and drinking water.
Snow whether Co2 snow or H20 snow could be used for landscaping, roads and preventing dust. Polluted water can used to provide pressure. Mars lack of air pressure is problem and water can solve that problem. One also used salt water for this purpose.
And one could mine polluted water and salt water- salt is big business on earth, and humans die without it.
Evaporation of saltwater or polluted can also shape our natural environment. Or price I talking about is drinkable water, non drinkable water I would tend to think is cheaper, but if mineable
and what is mined is valuable, non drinking water could around the same price or even worth even more.
But if landscaping with H2O, it would evaporate and if enough evaporates create regional bubble or dome of higher levels of water vapor than the rest Mars has.
Or mad levels of Mars water mining and “waste” of water evaporating could increase local real estate prices. Or your lake
lose less water, if one is living within say 500 km radius bubble of higher levels of water vapor.
So, if there enough water to mine, one could be mining a billion tons of water per year.
US uses or draws about 600 billion tons of water per year.
One could say if Mars doesn’t get to 1 billion tons of water per year {or more} mars is not viable. So, even if the first million tons cost you 5 billion dollars, one could sell it for 1 million dollars, or your business could worth more than 10 billion dollars in less than 5 years. The more makes in future the more that company is the biggest Mars water company and worth a lot money as company. One call this charity, or evil monopoly that must be opposed. The problem with monopoly idea, is there could many places in which one could have towns and there is no shortage of money {on Earth}. Or any party could at some later choose to go even bigger. And that also reason, one should always try to lowering the cost {and price} of water in the future.
Also, the price Mars water is metric of how well Mars is doing generally, economically. But another critical aspect is the price of electrical power. The price electrical is critical aspect or anywhere in space- and affects when Earth can get space power satellites beaming power to Earth surface.
I tend to think the Moon could be more important in terms electrical power in space, in the short term, and Venus orbit, in the longer term.
I have no idea why anyone would want to go to Mars to live. If there ever is a colony on Mars it’d likely be a prison colony where we send the worst offenders and their families. A la Australia back in the day.
NASA actually harms their credibility when they claim they are still looking for signs of life on Mars. I am convinced there is not because after years of exploration there has been no sign of it.
There is nothing of value on Mars except the pursuit of knowledge. Its just a gravity hole; there are better places to go in search of wealth just in our solar system.
Electricity on Mars is easy; solar panels, there are no clouds to get in the way.
Water. Its too cold to grow crops so the requirement for water is the daily consumption of anyone living there. Recycling would be key. (Water would taste like piss but hey)
“I have no idea why anyone would want to go to Mars to live.
…
Its too cold to grow crops so the requirement for water is the daily consumption of anyone living there.”
As far as being cold, one can simplify the issue,
can you warm water?
On Earth powerplants need water to cool, it’s significant of percentage water used in US- though largest portion water use is for farming use.
Or if didn’t have water to cool powerplants, it would be bigger cost to make electrical power.
Or having enough water, would lower the cost to make electrical power and it produces warm waste water.
Solar power can also heat water.
Using solar power to heat water is cheap and an efficient way to collect solar energy.
But a solar pond could be cheaper.
Solar ponds which require salt and water.
Amd One should also be able to have solar pond with ice at the top and warm water below.
Or solar pond with ice
And you use greenhouses.
Mars has no greenhouse effect; it would be much warmer with greenhouses.
And finally, water solves a big problem on Mars which the lack
air pressure. Water depth provide pressure. One can partially submerge a dome to grow plants on a lake. If lake water is warm enough it keeps plants from freezing {gives plant uniform temperature} and getsome pressure from the water. This assumes plants don’t need as much air pressure that humans need.
If you had to provide, say 10 psi, like would with humans, it could be more problem to grow crops on Mars.
Water in Mars Atmosphere would boil off into space.
Mars thin atmosphere is almost entirely CO2. There is greenhouse effect.
The only way you’d get water enough to provide air pressure would be to bang Mars into another body the size of our moon. That provides the ‘firmament’ event that separates the land from the water. A big problem; where to get the moon sized object and cause it to bang into Mars hard enough to get the job done but not so hard as to create another asteroid belt.
As for myself; I’d step up in a heartbeat to migrate to another planet. (I am dismayed by the ‘Crazy Years’ that Heinlein so accurately predicted) However it would have to have a ‘Fiddler’s Green’ level of habitability that Mars could never have.
“Water in Mars Atmosphere would boil off into space.”
There are billions of tons of water vapor in Mars atmosphere.
Mars atmosphere is about 12 trillion tons and has about 210 ppm
of water vapor. You could mine water from the Mars atmosphere.
You could send robotic mission which lands before crew get to Mars and mine Mars atmosphere to get water {and make lots of liquid CO2
get some oxygen:
Total mass of atmosphere: ~2.5 x 10^16 kg
” Carbon Dioxide (CO2) – 95.1% ; Nitrogen (N2) – 2.59%
Argon (Ar) – 1.94%; Oxygen (O2) – 0.16%; Carbon Monoxide (CO) – 0.06%
Minor (ppm): Water (H2O) – 210; Nitrogen Oxide (NO) – 100; Neon (Ne) – 2.5;
Hydrogen-Deuterium-Oxygen (HDO) – 0.85; Krypton (Kr) – 0.3;
Xenon (Xe) – 0.08″
It’s costly way to get water, but liquid CO2 could be useful as would be the nitrogen and small amount oxygen {.16% equals about
1600 ppm}. Also compressing the cold Mars air would also generate heat [make hot Mars air}. And after making tons of Liquid CO2 and
getting about 25 kg nitrogen gas per ton, and the other stuff one could land crew and the mars base at the same location.
And you bring LH2 and use the CO2 to make Methane for rocket fuel.
Certainly not my idea, Ie:
“A series of concepts have been developed to mine the atmosphere of Mars and process it to extract or generate compressed carbon dioxide, compressed buffer gas mixtures of nitrogen and argon, water, oxygen, carbon monoxide, and/or carbon. Such products can be of use to science instruments, robotic, and human missions. The products can be for utility purposes, life support, propulsion (both interplanetary and on the planet’s surface), and power generation.”
https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997isru.meet….7F/abstract
Also Mars weather can cause to surface atmosphere to have 10 or 100 times more water vapor in the atmosphere, and such location might part the consideration of where you put the first Mars base. And some areas might tend to have more wind and one can use windy conditions to lower cost of mining Mars atmosphere.
But I say greatest advantage is allows one to land where it’s safest to land, and don’t need the best spots on Mars to mine its sky. But if a good spot to go, and better to place to mine sky, it’s a small factor in the overall decision.
And if make pressure of 2.5 psi of air pressure, water boils at 57.4 C. Or even smaller amounts pressure water liquid at say, 20 C. And Mars lower elevation areas can enough pressure for liquid water not to boil.
So you two very different things NASA exploration and making towns which would be private investment- congress is quite against public money being used to make colonies, but they want NASA to explore Mars. So, for exploration purposes, getting water from atmosphere with a relative small operation, makes sense.
Though with towns one also mine Mars sky- for the CO2 and nitrogen and argon, mostly. But for water, it seems one need to good place to make water wells.
“As for myself; Id step up in a heartbeat to migrate to another planet. ”
Got to look up, Fiddlers Green:
“Fiddler’s Green is an after-life where there is perpetual mirth, a fiddle that never stops playing, and dancers who never tire. In 19th-century English maritime folklore, it was a kind of after-life for sailors who had served at least fifty years at sea” and I guess this:
Fiddler’s Green is an extrasolar colony mentioned in Robert A. Heinlein’s novels The Cat Who Walks Through Walls and Friday.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiddler%27s_Green
Well didn’t help much.
Generally, I think it take time to get to such fantasy. I mostly
interested in a pathway which leads to Earth getting energy from Space. Which could have begun decades ago, if NASA would done its job, but now, I would put that at about 50 years into the future.
Though the “Musk factor” could surprise me, so maybe within 30 years.
I guess my fantasy in living in Earth’s tropical ocean near spaceport in an ocean settlement. That could happen within 20 years.
And that also pathway to getting energy from space, sooner.
Lunar water mining and/or Mars towns, and/or ocean settlements can all lead to getting power from Space.
Though wilder, I would want to live in Venus orbit, near space ports
to the solar system, but if already living in tropical paradise ocean settlement- I could just decide stay on Earth.
.
“And finally, water solves a big problem on Mars which the lack
air pressure. Water depth provide pressure. One can partially submerge a dome to grow plants on a lake.”
An example. Generally, the more pressure one needs the better is
is, but have to be deep {and have less sunlight due to greater water depth, but my basis that one use shallower depths for crops is based on assumption plants need less pressure. I was reading more about pressure needed for plants, and there seemed to be uncertainty about the problems one gets significant low pressure. So decided to do 3 psi. 3 psi is enough humans, with oxygen mask. Of course, another important aspect of water is it’s easier to maintain a uniform daily temperature. Anyhow, close to 3 psi out needs 5 meter of Mars water depth or 5 meter = 16.4 feet, and on Mars: 2.78565 psig
{on Earth with 1 gee at 5 meters: 7.35 psig
I will skip my adventure with pyramid shapes:) But one can sort of see its mad effects:
I jolted down:
” 6 meter diameter hemisphere {19.685 feet} which is 3 meter high {9.84252} is placed on top {and in middle} of 8 meter diameter dome {26.2467 feet} which is half as high as hemisphere or two meter high [6.56 feet].
And this is put on top of dome 10 meter in diameter which rises 2 meter {a hemisphere would be 5 meter}
How high is the top of 6 meter diameter hemisphere to bottom of 10 meter diameter dome?
This bad design would be used on Mars. In lake on Mars.
But instead, one can also use cylinder shape rather this spherical shape.
Which I think could be more practical for growing plants on Mars.
But we will look the spherical shapes.
First, we will note, the greenhouse has 3 floors. And domes made from transparent material and could be glass or plastic.
How high is top? Has to be + 3 meters with 1 meter horizonal distance of rise of the 8 meter and 10 meter diameter dome.
With 8 meter diameter, in 4 meter radius goes 2 meter up and quarter 2 meters is .5 meter.
And 10 diameter is 5 meter radius and 1/5th of 2 meter is .4 meter. So about 3.9 meter [12.78 feet}
And I wanted 3 psi: which 5.384739 meter below the surface of lake.
If add floor 1/2 meter lower: 3.9 + .5 = 4.4 meter
{The floor will be damp Mars sand}
5.384739 – 4.4 meters = 0.984739 meters below waterline.
I thought it would be above waterline.
So I guess add 3 meter diameter cylinder which is 2 meter high on top of 6 meter diameter. And above that put 1.5 meter diameter
cylinder and 2.2 meter high, which has door which can be sealed {an airlock] and 3 meter diameter cylinder below it is where you take off your spacesuits.Though you also enter from
the bottom if go thru the water {could enter there with scuba gear}. So 3 meter diameter mudroom where take off space suits has 2.5 psi air pressure. And every room below has 3 psi.
In the 6 meter diameter hemisphere, one has 56.5 square meter of dome area and 3 meter diameter cylinder above takes up 7 square meter of it, but 3 meter cylinder is also transparent, but
pressure hatch {about 1 square meter would not be}. 6 meter diameter room has door in middle of to go down the 8 meter diameter room. Which also has door in middle going to 10 meter
diameter room. The 10 meter room has vertical wall which .5 meter and it’s transparent, but past the sand it’s 10 meter diameter metal cylinder tall enough to hold enough wet sand to cause
all this structure to be under water. But has airlock, which goes thru metal cylinder wall and up to surface of sandy floor, outside 10 meter diameter is vertical pipe with enough
air pressure, that climb a ladder out of water, with passage which goes two air locks.
And cylinders design, same thing, but it’s long and narrow similar, commercial greenhouse on Earth, so 10 meter wide and 50 or 100 meter long.
Anyhow the light levels are not particularly good as lowest part of greenhouse but could enough light to see in during day. One could add light for growing purposes but could be where growing seedlings and be a place to do various gardening work. Or if want grow mushrooms, one could a have cellar in the sand.”
And far as 10 psi pressure to live, it could under the metal cylinder filled with sand. So, each 1 meter of 10 meter diameter has 78.53975 cubic meter, if density of 1 above water density, 78.53975 tons.
As far buoyancy, simplest one is 6 meter diameter hemisphere.
3 meter radius has volume of 113.1 cubic meter and half for it being hemisphere is 56.55 cubic meter, 56.55 tons buoyancy on Earth. Mars ratio of gravity with Earth is 0.379 and times 56.55 = 21.43245 Earth metric tons of weight.
if displacement or force of buoyancy. So, somewhere around few meters depth of sand, unless want some more, for living area below it- but probably better to have living areas have their own ballast.
Hmm in terms of comparably forces 3 meter radius area sphere is 1.75×10^5 square inches, hemisphere: 87500 square inches per 1 psi or 87500 lbs or 39689 kg or 39.6 metric tons.
Or boat which floats 100 tons on Earth, floats at level on water on Mars, but there is gravity force or weight on Mars.
But 1 psi on Earth is same force on Mars. Or in terms of material
strength, it’s net gain.
One thing about cold Mars.
On Earth when in thin atmosphere- extreme example is the thermosphere or low earth orbit the air is not cold nor hot [Thermosphere gas temperature can be 2000 C and not vaguely hot nor cold]. Mars has thin and cold surface atmosphere but it’s not like Earth’s cold air.
Or have earth engines which cools by air- the Mars air can’t cool these engines- it’s too much of a vacuum like air.
Or cooling things like engines or powerplants on Mars or Moon is difficult or expensive.
So having water on Mars {or Moon] makes it a lot cheaper to cool things.
But if want things to stay cold, ie like in your refrigerator [which could use 1/2 of an Earthling’s electrical energy bill]. You can have very cheap refrigerators {things that keep things cold- even very cold} on Mars and Moon [or anywhere in space] or in space you could need to warm refrigerators so they don’t, over time, get too cold.
And Humans are a heat generating mammals with their meat supercomputers- which all by itself creates fair amount of waste heat. So, since humans aren’t lizards, they need to cool their spacesuits on Mars or the Moon.
And a house on Moon or Mars is roughly just a big spacesuit- or thermos bottle.
Oh, just thought something regarding refrigerators.
Which also about low income ocean settlement and low energy use
ocean settlement. And tropical paradise ocean settlements.
You have a refriderator cold about 1000 meter down.
One could fish for cold.
Fishing line and near neutral buoyant refrigerator.
You can’t get icy cold beer.
But one can get tons of cold water. And say going at 1 km per hour and could require lifting say 10 lb per ton.
Got figure the details. Oh, guess simplest thing is to hang a weight. Air pressure difference. Well, water is not problem but a bottle of beer or anything air in it… Keeping simple just freshwater is being made colder. hmm:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermocline
4 C seems be quite deep, 5 C is a lot easier.
It seems more practical to get more quantity of 5 C vs less amount
of 4 C or colder. And make ice refrigerate within 5 C “environment of water”. A question which come to mind, is why aren’t already doing this?
Must be something I am missing. Though not typical to have 5 C tap water, or least having dependable source of 5 C water.
One advantage of Mars is one have “tap water” which is both hot and cold. Get 100 C or 3 C water. And could have this with all high density “settlements”. Or an ocean settlement can be high density {but not crowded} residential area. No roads and 8000 people living within walking distance. So, go that way, cold water is merely piped, and one place which makes the cold water.
Preppers are prepping for La Nina winter
https://youtu.be/XWPil8xZ6Jw
eben…”Preppers are prepping for La Nina winter”
***
Thanks for link. The alarmists in the Canadian government are tripping all over themselves blaming recent flooding in the Vancouver, Canada area on climate change. One idiot the other day claimed that the heat waves here last summer and the current flooding is proof of climate change. Another politician claimed ‘scientist’ had warned us climate change was coming. What scientists??? They are all alarmist climate modelers.
If climate is loosely defined as a 30 year average of weather, you’d need 30 years of summer heat waves and winter flooding to declare climate change. The irony is that Kamloops, just 250 miles away, with a desert climate, is having no rain. Yet, over the mountain in a valley, Merritt is flooded out.
Our self-appointed government climate gurus in Canada, Environment Canada, are using metaphors like ‘atmospheric river’, in reference to a relatively normal rain this time of year in a rainforest climate, to further their climate alarmist agenda. They have openly blamed the heat waves and flooding on climate change, yet NOAA, climate alarmists themselves, are making it clear the heat wave last summer and the current flooding are due to La Nina conditions.
Note on the following map from your link, that the Pacific Northwest is expecting rain in December 2021 but the southern US is getting below average. Duh!!!
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/predictions/30day/off14_prcp.gif
The Climate Change Claptrap in Canada regarding the recent flooding event is meant to distract from the discussion about dikes and how it has been known for years that the dikes are inadequate. The failure of building adequate dikes and maintaining existing dikes is a big fumble by our provincial and federal government. Its very unfortunate that people pay any attention to the unfounded claims about anthropogenic climate change.
Australians getting ready to be soaked
https://youtu.be/xfH5m5sVgWs
ken…”William Happer’s paper says doubling CO2 from 400 to 800 ppm will result in 1.5C warming. He shows lots of evidence based on radiation transfer theory”.
***
Not being facetious. Can you post that link again, I’d like to see Happer’s derivation.
BTW…what is radiation transfer theory? In mechanical engineering textbooks you sometimes see an attempt at a two-way transfer of radiation but they are referencing a theory that has never been proved. In fact, it has been disproved between bodies of different temperatures in quantum theory.
In the same textbooks, you never see a real-world example where a two-way transfer can occur. Normally, they include radiation as part of a heat transfer involving conduction and/or convection and radiation. However, the transfer is always from hot to cold. This flies in the face of there purely theoretical assertions that radiation can be transferred both ways.
Radiation can’t really be transferred. It must be converted from one energy state to another, meaning the radiation disappears and heat is produced ***IF*** the radiation is absorbed. The textbooks in question seem to claim a two-way transfer of energy is automatic, which is not the case.
The only way this could happen is at thermal equilibrium, which is pretty useless in the real world. No heat gets transfer in that context, only radiation.
Huh????
Happer and van WijnGaarden Dependence of Earths Thermal Radiation on Five Most Abundant Greenhouse Gases
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2006.03098.pdf
Ken, It appears that van WijnGaarden’s paper has not been published thru peer review, having only been posted on a pre-print server. That said, it’s still interesting. At the end, they note that their results are similar to more recent results:
“Radiation cant really be transferred. It must be converted from one energy state to another, meaning the radiation disappears and heat is produced ***IF*** the radiation is absorbed.”
See wikipedia article about Carbon Dioxide. See the discussion about Structure, bonding and molecular vibrations.
binny…”any point on the Moon moves constantly a tiny bit slower or faster than expected, according to Keplers laws…”
***
I explained this to you before. Kepler’s Laws says nothing about the Moon’s tangential velocity, which is always constant. I refers to speed, a scalar quantity.
Kepler II is the law closest to this situation. It claims that a radial line between the Sun and a planet carves out equal areas in equal times. That is a clear reference to ***SPEED***, not tangential velocity.
He points out in Kepler I that the orbit is an ellipse. The ellipse is due to the constant tangential momentum of a planet having more influence over gravity in certain parts of the orbit. Therefore, the equilibrium between gravity and the planet’s constant momentum is skewed toward the momentum, allowing the orbit to elongate.
That means the planet must travel farther at the same tangential velocity. Since speed is a scalar quantity representing distance/unit time, it can increase, but the tangential velocity cannot change unless a force is applied to the planet to make it move faster.
Robertson
” I explained this to you before. Keplers Laws says nothing about the Moons tangential velocity, which is always constant. I refers to speed, a scalar quantity. ”
You are not explaining anything other than the degree of your mixture of ignorance, egocentrism and denialism.
How can you dare to compare your stoopid, primitive pseudoproofs with the REAL work of astronomers and mathematicians like Mayer in 1750, Habibullin in the 1960’s on the basis of 90 years of lunar observation at the Kazan Observatory, and these many people who evaluated Lunar Laser Ranging since 1975?
Why, do you think, did all these people come to nearly the same results, though having used completely different observation tools and completely different evaluation methods of observation data?
Your never have understood even half a bit of what Mayer did (instead, you persistently discredited and denigrated him), let alone would you ever be able to scientifically contradict his amazing proof.
You lack any technical and scientific education to do that.
Until now, you did not even manage to grasp simplest, trivial basics, e.g. what physicist, mathematician and astronomer Newton meant when he wrote ‘with respect to the fixed stars’ !
Not even that simple thing!
But I know: You never will be able admit that you are absolutely wrong with your childish blah and that you will repeat your insane pseudoscience again and again, exactly as demented people do.
Braindead-idon, the simple vector problem, that you ran from, is nothing more than the direct application of Newton’s Laws. If you can’t solve the simple problem, then maybe you shouldn’t be pretending you understand anything about Newton.
“Kepler’s Laws says nothing about the Moon’s tangential velocity, which is always constant”
Kepler’s Laws say that objects will orbit the barycenter in an ellipse, which does not have constant tangential velocity.
rlh…”The moon does rotate on its own axis. Once per orbit of the Earth/Moon barycenter”.
***
Still awaiting your scientific proof, Richard. Cat got your tongue?
Still waiting your scientific proof, Gordon. Cat got your tongue?
The thing is, you don’t have to prove observations.
You do need a viable theory to support future estimations though.
bob,
And of course, Newton’s Laws confirm the observations. The Moon is falling continuously towards the Earth – which is why we only see the bottom of the object from directly beneath.
Additionally, the Moon’s velocity is apparently very slightly more than is required to keep the Moon in an orbit maintaining a constant average distance from the Earth. It is actually receding from the Earth. Observation.
This is one reason for a widely accepted hypothesis that the Moon originated from a collision between the Earth and another celestial body. There are other hypotheses, of course.
Did your comment have a point, or were you just randomly hammering the keyboard?
We are not directly beneath where the Moon is falling towards. That is somewhere over the horizon.
RLH,
Yes we are, unless you are using climate crackpot physics. As I said, “we only see the bottom of the object from directly beneath.” From other viewpoints we see a little of the sides, top, and bottom. This is called apparent libration, apparently.
The Earth is spherical (more or less), so that the Moon is falling continuously towards a point on the surface directly beneath it at any given time. The Moon is also in continuous “tangential” motion to its orbit, so what is “directly underneath” also changes continuously.
That clever chap, Sir Isaac Newton, illustrated the principle with an imaginary cannonball, fired parallel to the surface, above the influence of the atmosphere, at progressively greater muzzle velocities, to the point where the ball never falls to Earth, but falls continuously.
Newton was originally disturbed that observations did not seem to verify his calculations, but it turned out that the observations were in error. Phew! I assume that Newton was very relieved.
I’m relieved that Newton also calculated that the end of the world will not occur before 2060. Even if it does, Newton also calculated the dimensions of the New Jerusalem (from memory) as being large enough to accommodate not only every person who has ever existed, but any number yet to exist. The volume of the New Jerusalem will apparently exceed 5 x 10^9 cubic miles. Newton assumed God would rearrange the laws of gravity suit, after the Apocalypse.
Not sure about Newton’s calculations in those areas.
As Newton said about objects, they do not change their orientation without a force operating to make it happen. This means that his cannonball will continue to ‘face’ a fixed star unless some force continuously operates to make it face anything else.
If a piano were to fall towards from above you but have a horizontal velocity that meant it never met the Earth, then although it would at one instance only have its bottom facing you, after 90 degrees of travel its side would face you instead. Its bottom would continue to face the fixed star that was behind/below you at the start.
Like it you were to push a big round barge towards a point ‘over there’, it the tide were to push it sideways then it will continue to point ‘forwards’ it will not turn on its axis to always face the ‘center’.
Swenson,
Yeah, Right,
“And of course, Newton’s Laws confirm the observations. The Moon is falling continuously towards the Earth – which is why we only see the bottom of the object from directly beneath.”
Works for half the orbit, the other half it’s continuously falling away from Earth.
Have you taken any eight grade science classes lately?
bob,
No, the Earth falls toward the earth continuously.
I am unaware of any eight grade science classes which teaches that Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation does not apply to the gravitational attraction between the Earth and the Moon.
That is no doubt because the nonsense you imply is the product of your own ignorant and deranged imagination.
Idiot climate crackpots believe in all sorts of imaginary physics – for example they seem to believe that heat can spontaneously flow from colder to hotter, without the colder becoming even colder due to the loss of energy Fromm it.
A miracle! These dummies gabble about the conservation of energy, but don’t believe it applies to them. If it did, the colder object would become colder, as the hotter became even hotter, as the total energy content of the two is conserved, without losses.
Are you stupid enough to believe that you can make water warmer using the radiation from ice – even if available in infinite amounts? Rhetorical question, of course.
Carry on acting the fool. I won’t tell anyone you are not really acting.
Swenson,
You are being mildly entertaining.
First the universal law of gravitation tells the force between two objects, and says nothing about which one is falling towards the other one, or if that is happening at all.
It might be accurate to claim that the Moon is in free fall in the Earth’s gravity well.
But that doesn’t preclude the Moon from moving away from the Earth during half of its orbit.
When a body is moving away from another body, is it correct to say it is falling towards that body.
It seems you must be as stupid as the things you write.
Next
“Idiot climate crackpots believe in all sorts of imaginary physics – for example they seem to believe that heat can spontaneously flow from colder to hotter, without the colder becoming even colder due to the loss of energy Fromm it.”
Nope, none of us believe that.
Perhaps you could provide a quote where I said something like that.
That’s not the greenhouse effect.
Maybe it’s your deluded idea of what the greenhouse effect is, hell, I don’t fucking know what the hell you are thinking.
“No, the Earth falls toward the earth continuously”
So does the distance between Earth and the Moon always decrease?
> still waiting
Being able to wait is good for the Marshmallow Test:
https://youtu.be/uX9cemDYSDM
There may be a correlation between egocentrism and contrarianism.
” IMPORTANT WEATHER ALERT!! LA NINA ADVISORY FOR WINTER 2021-22!! BE PREPARED FOR RECORD COLD & SNOW!! ”
That is very certainly true for Northern America above 50N.
Here is a much deeper analysis of what we have to expect for the incoming months.
1. Temperature
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/glbT2mSeaInd1.gif
2. Precipitation
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/glbPrecSeaInd1.gif
*
NOAA predicted during the summers in 2016 an extremely warm, and in 2017 a warm winter for Western Europe: exactly what happened.
And many people like we, who perfectly recall the winters in 1956, 1963, 1979, 1987 etc, were in Northeast Germany quite happy about that.
Not the children, however! “Papa! Wo bleibt denn der Schnee? “.
And just like that Bindidong turned into a La Nina forecaster
https://i.postimg.cc/6qBCrZs4/5t6blu.jpg
You are at least 101% right.
“BE PREPARED FOR RECORD COLD & SNOW”
Is that more than has ever happened before?
Source is (© Eben)
https://youtu.be/XWPil8xZ6Jw
You said
“That is very certainly true for Northern America above 50N”
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/htmls/usT2me3Mon.html
So are you saying that it will be a record cold or a record hot?
We all remember Eben’s post on Nov 26, about a fabulous prediction for the planet Germoney
https://postimg.cc/06vW8kd2
made by the great geniuses of StormVistaWxModels.com.
Snow in the Alps? Unprecedented, I tell you!
And don’t wonder about -2x C in Lulea or Archangelsk, that’s 65N, plain Arctic.
*
The forecast by wetteronline.de looks like that made 5 days ago:
https://tinyurl.com/yxs43zum
Yeah. It’s supercold in Germoney, I tell you!
+5 C right now…, +3 C was minimum last night.
But… wait!
-4 C expected Friday night. Woooah. Unprecedented, I tell you!
Desperate much ???
A blend of the GFS analysis and NCEP reanalysis suggest odds favor a slight decrease in the UAH TLT anomaly for November. But remember that UAH TLT is not fully coupled to the surface temperature and they frequently move in opposite directions so a decrease is not certain. Statistical and dynamical model guidance has this La Nina peaking in the Dec/Jan timeframe at around -1.0 as compared to the -1.3 peak for the Oct-Nov-Dec value from last year. The odds of the UAH TLT anomaly dropping below zero on the 1981-2010 baseline and all of those predictions we saw posted to this blog and WUWT are looking very questionable right now. But there is still time and there is still a chance so we’ll see how this plays out.
On NCEP surface data I expect November UAH TLT to come in a bit below September but above August, say 0.22 +/-0.05C.
As far as I can see, The current La Nina forecast is bigger than the last year one in both duration and the peak drop
https://i.postimg.cc/przZ8562/nino34-Mon.gif
https://i.postimg.cc/NfvbtbKL/nino34-Monc.gif
I expect “bdgwx” is looking at the multi-model ensemble which shows a averaged minimum estimate between -0.6 and -1.0 bottoming out in NDJ. The NCEP CFSv2 model is projecting a longer and deeper La Nina event than most of the other models as you have observed.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/figure06.gif
Me thinks everybody can agree on this graph proposed by Eben long time ago:
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/CFSv2/imagesInd3/nino34Sea.gif
No idea why bdgwx stays on a -1.0 minimum.
‘Statistical and dynamical model guidance’ sounds nice, but when it even stays above NOAA’s predictions, then I switch to doubt.
By mid Dec we will know better. We all are no forecasters, genius Eben included.
Bindidon, Mark B is right. I’m looking at the multi-model ensemble. Dynamical guidance is about -1.0 while statistical guidance is -0.6. Technically that would be an average of -0.8, but I figured since my point was that the La Nina wasn’t expected to be as low as 2020 I should go with the lower 2021 value.
Everybody has their own forecast idea
https://i.postimg.cc/63BmHVF1/ens01.jpg
Only one will be correct.
Or none depending on how you define “correct”.
One line will be closest to the outcome.
“Musk factor”
Elon Musk says SpaceX could face ‘genuine risk of bankruptcy’ from Starship engine production
https://spaceexplored.com/2021/11/29/spacex-raptor-crisis/
linked from: http://www.transterrestrial.com/2021/11/30/the-raptor-crisis/
Musk is madman.
“Musk closed out the email with a dire message:
What it comes down to, is that we face a genuine risk of bankruptcy if we can’t achieve a Starship flight rate of at least once every two weeks next year.
Thanks,
Elon ”
So, 100 tons to orbit +25 times a year.
And really don’t know if Starship can land and be reused.
It’s possible he allowing for this risk, and allowing for possibility expending the second stage. Or reusing the first stage seems more important at this stage of things, that is also
a unknow factor, seems could that fixed quicker and with more certainty as compared to the re-entry of second stage.
Hopeful within 5 to 6 weeks, get the launch, and get idea of how hard it’s going to be.
Falcon 9 and Dragon have worked well, but the Starship prototypes are boilerplate shells with only engines, tanks and guidance computers.
Musk is a very long way from a human rated, or even payload rated Starship.
Starship is ready to go to orbit, just waiting for FAA environmental assessment
“The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announced on Monday that it plans to finish an environmental assessment of SpaceX’s expansion plans by the end of this year.”
https://www.tpr.org/environment/2021-11-16/faa-says-it-will-finish-environmental-assessment-of-spacex-facility-in-south-texas-by-years-end
“Musk is a very long way from a human rated, or even payload rated Starship.”
Musk plans launch satellites with Starship.
In terms lunar mission, Starship will not lift crew to orbit, rather going to land crew on the Moon. But that could change if there are further delays with SLS.
Starship might launch more than 30 times before; it’s got a manned mission.
Which would effectively make it more manned rated than any other rocket in history before its first crewed launch.
But launch sometime in early 2022, will be test launch. And if goes better than expected, Musk will put satellites on the next one. And it will effective be another test launch but this in terms being reusable rocket. Then going work on testing it in terms fast turnaround.
With Falcon first stage, turnaround:
“Jan 17, 2021 · Falcon 9 booster B1060 achieved the same 51-day turnaround feat just three months later, proving that B1058’s record wasn’t a mere fluke.”
https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-falcon-9-booster-record-rocket-turnaround-2021/
Musk might regard 51-day turnaround of Starship, as not fast enough- he wants hours rather than days. But seem it will take a while to get it down to less than 1 week. But he should be extremely happy if he gets 51-day turnaround within a year.
But Elon is a madman.
But it’s possible, that the Starship needs to be radically changed, apparently Musk not happy with his Raptor engines and going to replace it with a new engine, which he hopes he make can make faster and cheaper.
It’s been reported a fair amount that Musk is “exciting to work for”.
binny…”Here is a much deeper analysis of what we have to expect [from La Nina]for the incoming months”.
***
Another fabrication from NOAA. Look at the precipitation graph. You can’t even see the precipitation over the Pacific Northwest region of the US/Canada, without zooming in, but they have predicted about 2 mm above normal. We are already 100 mm above normal, which was predicted on another NOAA graph at a link provided by Eben.
If you look on the NOAA site at the appropriate graph, the entire month of November is missing. I guess they removed it due to embarrassment over how wrong they were.
This La Nina is turning into a monster for us. We have experienced severe flooding which idiots are blaming on climate change. BTW…NOAA has acknowledged La Nina as the cause of the heat wave we experienced briefly last June and July. Apparently the developing LN set up conditions in the Pacific Ocean that drove heat over us and left it there was a couple of weeks.
rlh…”Still waiting your scientific proof, Gordon. Cat got your tongue?”
***
It’s quite pathetic when a man claiming to have a masters degree answers like a snotty-nosed kid. Mimicry for want of a good answer is a ploy of a child. Maybe in your case it’s early onset.
The really pathetic part, however, is that you lack the scientific background to offer a rebuttal. Not once have you offered an explanation for how the Moon keeps the same face pointed at Earth while rotating exactly once about its axis per orbit.
Its quite pathetic when a man who claims to know a lot. answers like a snotty-nosed kid.
Makes him quite pathetic all round.
I have made clear scientific claims which you dismiss without cause because they do not fit with your agenda. You are an idiot plain and simple.
rlh…”Keplers Laws say that objects will orbit the barycenter in an ellipse, which does not have constant tangential velocity”.
***
The ellipse doesn’t have a constant tangential velocity???? Where did Kepler ever claim anything you have written above?
“The ellipse doesn’t have a constant tangential velocity???? Where did Kepler ever claim anything you have written above?”
Well, first of all, since the *direction* of travel in changing, then, by definition, the tangential *velocity* of an orbiting object is changing.
But even if we are talking about tangential *speed*, Kepler exactly claimed the speed changed. Planets orbit FASTEST when they closest to the sun and planets orbit SLOWEST when farthest from the sun. That is the only way to get “equal areas in equal times”.
This is Physics 101. This is Astronomy 101.
tim…”Well, first of all, since the *direction* of travel in changing, then, by definition, the tangential *velocity* of an orbiting object is changing”.
***
I wish could stop minimizing this problem by references to Astronomy 101, or the likes. It’s far more complex than what anyone would study in first year. The fact that you keep relating the math and physics to first year material suggests you are stuck at that level and fail to understand the complexity of the physical problem.
I have seen this argument about a varying vector direction used before and I think it is wrong. If a vector used in reference to an orbit changes direction it is claimed by some that a changing velocity means acceleration. However, the instantaneous scalar quantity is constant and for acceleration a force is required to change that scalar quantity.
If you study vector calculus, say in 3-D, you solve problems by creating a matrix. You take the scalar quantities and arrange them in a 3 x 3 matrix so you can operate on them. Of course, the scalar quantities are multiples of a unit vector, the unit vector have a scalar quantity of one, with a direction along the x, y,or z axes, referred as i,j, and k respectively.
This means you cannot change vector direction without changing the scalar fields. Therefore, you have to ask the meaning of a constant tangential velocity. From my understanding, the slope of a tangent line to a circle represents the first derivative of the circle equation. That applies only at a single point on the circle, however.
Again, this is not a simple problem because we are not dealing with a particle following a circular or elliptical path. We are dealing with a rigid body trying to move in a straight line at any instant while being re-directed by a gravitational field acting from the centre of the circle (ellipse). The field lacks the strength to accelerate the Moon in any direction.
I find it simply wrong to claim that a body moving at constant velocity in an ellipse is accelerating in any direction. The tangential velocity vector is simply not accelerating as some claim because the direction changes. The gravitational force is causing the change of direction but it has no effect on the constant tangential velocity.
Furthermore, it’s backwards to claim the magnitude of the tangential velocity changes in an elliptical orbit. It is the relationship between gravitational force and the constant tangential velocity that creates the elliptical orbit, not the other way around.
Remember, the Moon-Earth interaction is unique compared to terrestrial motion. The lunar motion is a resultant between a gravitation field and a body moving with constant momentum. We tend to think of gravity being in complete control of the Moon but that is not the case. Gravity has it’s own say in the shape of the orbit by means of its own immense linear momentum.
For that momentum to change, a force is required to oppose it or increase it. That force would have to be applied tangentially and there is no such force. If the force was applied in any other direction it could shift the Moon out of its orbit,
However, if the effect of gravity on the Moon reduces slightly, the Moon’s momentum will have a slightly greater effect, elongating the orbit. It does not have to change its tangential velocity but it covers a greater distance in the same time, changing the speed.
As I showed with my analysis of an ellipse, with the Earth at the principal focal point, the gravity vector does change slightly in an ellipse. This can only mean that when the Moon was captured, its linear momentum was slightly too high for gravity to hold it in a circular orbit.
Had the Moon more momentum, the orbit would have been more eccentric. Had it been high enough, the Moon would have broken free after following a parabolic orbit. In other words, the current orbital path was created under conditions where the constant lunar momentum had a slightly greater effect than gravity.
As gravity loses control in certain parts of the orbit, the Moon can travel farther at the same constant velocity.
“This can only mean that when the Moon was captured, its linear momentum was slightly too high for gravity to hold it in a circular orbit”
You are completely deluded about orbits. All velocities will create a non-orbit unless something acts to slow it down to an elliptical one. it requires some retrograde acceleration to do that. The suggestion is that a collision between the 2 bodies did that in the case of the Moon/Earth. Otherwise the Moon would have continued on its path past us and not be present in orbit where it is now.
“gravity loses control in certain parts of the orbit”
Gravity never loses control though its effective value may decrease due to distance.
Gordo is seriously deluded regarding orbits, writing:
I would think that any first year physics student would understand the gravity changes both the direction of the Moon’s velocity vector and it’s magnitude. In an elliptical orbit, the force of gravity is not perpendicular to the orbital path, thus gravity accelerates the Moon’s speed between apogee and perigee, then slows it between perigee and apogee.
“a gravitational field acting from the centre of the circle (ellipse)”
A circle has only 1 ‘center’. An ellipse has 2.
Kepler’s Laws say that objects will orbit the barycenter in an ellipse, which does not have constant tangential velocity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion#/media/File:Kepler_laws_diagram.svg
Only a circle has a constant tangential velocity.
binny…”How can you dare to compare your stoopid, primitive pseudoproofs with the REAL work of astronomers and mathematicians like Mayer in 1750, Habibullin in the 1960s on the basis of 90 years of lunar observation at the Kazan Observatory, and these many people who evaluated Lunar Laser Ranging since 1975?”
***
Why can you not discuss the physics in your own words with appealing to the authority of Mayer et al? My so-called pseudo-proofs are based on calculus and are irrefutable. Even NASA id not try to refute the mathematical logic I presented to them, they merely shifted the frame of reference incorrectly.
Mayer made important contributions to lunar motion but the tables he produced are now obsolete. However, his background is not in physics, it is in gathering data and analyzing it. He made an incredible error by trying to treat the points on the Moon statistically then reaching an erroneous conclusion about the Moon’s rotation, which does not apply to his statistical analysis.
To make my point simple-stupid, imagine a radial line rotating about 0,0. Stop it along the +ve x-axis and draw a line perpendicular to the radial line at x = 5. Now let the radial line rotate CCW.
The perpendicular line rotates around 0,0 with the radial line but it does not rotate around the point where it intercepts the radial line. The angle the perpendicular line makes with the x-axis changes through 360 degree wrt to the x-axis and it is that change in orientation that is being mistaken for rotation around the point where it intercepts the radial line.
Mayer et al obviously fell for the same illusion. If you cannot understand my simple analogy to lunar motion, you are hopeless in physics and math.
Don’t worry, RLH, with a master’s degree, or NASA, cannot understand it either.
type….”Why can you not discuss the physics in your own words with appealing to the authority of Mayer et al?”
Should read…
“Why can you not discuss the physics in your own words WITHOUT appealing to the authority of Mayer et al?
“Dont worry, RLH, with a masters degree, or NASA, cannot understand it either”
I won’t compare myself to NASA but on orbital matters I have to agree with them. That’s my scientific and logical training at work.
Robertson
” My so-called pseudo-proofs are based on calculus and are irrefutable. ”
YOU, the zero dot zero under the zeroes, doing a calculus? And even an irrefutable one? Your thoughts are of such a tremendous triviality, and are nothing worth, Robertson. NOTHING!
The more you write about anything, the more you show how ignorant and arrogant you are, and how stupid your primitive ‘thoughts’ are.
*
” Mayer made important contributions to lunar motion but the tables he produced are now obsolete. However, his background is not in physics, it is in gathering data and analyzing it. He made an incredible error by trying to treat the points on the Moon statistically then reaching an erroneous conclusion about the Moon’s rotation, which does not apply to his statistical analysis. ”
You prove again that you did not understand ANYTHING about what Mayer wrote.
Your entire pseudoknowledge about him is based on infos you collected on the web (starting with exactly that Wiki you consider ‘unreliable’ when it shows things you want to deny).
In all these contributions, among which those of Eric Gray Forbes are the strangest, he has been incorrectly elevated to a precursor of statistics.
He never did anything with statistics in his treatise. Never! He himself would have laughed a lot when he could have read a posteriori what was written about him.
I have read the 130 pages of his treatise from A to Z and there is no trace of it.
All he did was a – for that time really very smart – averaging at a decisive place in his computation of the inclination of Moon’s polar axis wrt the Ecliptic, what allowed him to achieve a much higher precision than Cassini obtained.
And, as I wrote here many times, his computation of Moon’s spin period was of an incredible precision: the difference between his computation and that performed today by using LLR data is so small that it is first visible when you look at the 6th digit after the decimal point.
And that, Robertson, is the reason why his lunar tables were so amazingly accurate at that time: all tables made before him, by Hevelius, Rizzoli etc, were all wrong because these people did not know how to get rid of the optical, apparent libration effects.
That is exactly what Cassini and Mayer did, the latter of course with a much higher precision.
*
But such things you are far too uneducated to understand, and will never be able to learn them, let alone would you be willing to accept them. You are in between too dense for that.
*
I repeat what I wrote about:
” Until now, you did not even manage to grasp simplest, trivial basics, e.g. what physicist, mathematician and astronomer Newton meant when he wrote ‘with respect to the fixed stars’ !
Not even that simple thing!
But I know: You never will be able admit that you are absolutely wrong with your childish blah and that you will repeat your insane pseudoscience again and again, exactly as demented people do. ”
*
When I look at you endless posts everywhere on this blog, whose scientific content is inversely proportional to their length, I can only say: visit a neurologist before it’s too late.
If Mayer thought he was seeing Moon rotation, he was wrong. He was “seeing” libration, which is not even a real motion. You keep relying on centuries-old documents that you can’t understand. You can’t solve any of the easy problems. (NONE of you cult idiots know any physics.)
You have NOTHING.
AND, you can’t learn. You’re braindead, Bindidon.
Clint R, you should listen to yourself. You have used ref. frames correctly: from inside the moon orbit on Earth observers see earthshine incident on only the man in the moon face, no moon axial rotation. Then from way outside the lunar orbit those observers see sunshine incident on all lunar faces, moon rotates on its own axis!
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2021/11/uah-global-temperature-update-for-october-20210-37-deg-c/#comment-1028184
And one more time, the poor Clint R comes along with his lie:
” He was ‘seeing’ libration, which is not even a real motion. ”
You perfectly know that in fact, YOU are seeing libration, because you don’t know, like all astronomers before Cassini and Mayer, how to get rid of it.
Cassini and Mayer did know how to do.
Cassini left us nothing about how he came up with his calculations, but Mayer did:
https://www.e-rara.ch/download/pdf/913790?name=IV%20Abhandlung%20%C3%BCber%20die%20Umw%C3%A4lzung%20des%20Monds%20um%20seine%20Axe%20und%20die%20scheinbare%20Beweg
YOU are the one who can’t understand such a document, because you lack both the scientific education and the technical skill to do.
You can’t even understand the simple statement written by Mayer in his intro:
https://tinyurl.com/5789rrne
” Finally, Cassini came on the right track, and had the idea to explain what was named Moon’s libration with its spin about its axis. ”
But I know: you will deny that until your last breath.
Bindidon, there is no excuse for you being this braindead. You know nothing about orbital motions or physics yet you cling to your cult, based only on researchers from 300 years ago. Mayer had an excuse for not understanding. You don’t!
ken…”“Radiation cant really be transferred. It must be converted from one energy state to another, meaning the radiation disappears and heat is produced ***IF*** the radiation is absorbed.”
See wikipedia article about Carbon Dioxide. See the discussion about Structure, bonding and molecular vibrations”.
***
Ken… not trying to be snarky but you should know by now that Wiki is seriously unreliable as a source of science. Many of their articles are spot-on while many of them are full of half-truths, or none at all. Any of us here could post an article on Wiki and if it went unchallenged, it would stick. Unfortunately, there are editors at Wiki who favour certain paradigms and they will amend your entry to meet their biased views.
You can check the following independently of Wiki.
We are talking quantum theory. It began in 1913 when Bohr proposed his model of electrons orbiting a nucleus with the stipulation that the orbits are variable and discrete. That means an electron can occupy one orbital energy level at a time and it is confined to that orbital energy level till it receives energy to rise to a higher level or it emits radiation while dropping to a lower level.
Please don’t come back at me claiming the Bohr model is obsolete. It is still taught in modern chemistry classes albeit with the required amendments to account for multi-electron/proton atoms. It’s still the same basic Bohr model.
The orbital energy levels are said to be quantized, meaning they are restricted to a certain potential energy level with no intermediate states between levels. That’s what distinguishes quantum theory from Newtonian theory, the quantized states.
In Wikipedia, you will hear them talking about molecular quantum states and there is no such thing. A molecule, by definition, is two or more atomic nucleii bonded by electrons. The electron is the only particle moving, and because it has an electric charge, it produces a magnetic field when it moves. It’s kinetic energy internally is a measure of its orbital velocity (KE = 1/2mv^2) and it frequency is the number of orbits it makes per second.
There is no such thing as a molecular vibration. The vibration involves the interaction between electrons and the nucleii. There is nothing else in a molecule that can vibrate.
If an electron is in orbital level 3 (simplified) and it drops to energy level 2, it emits a quantum of electromagnetic energy = E = hf. E can further be broken down into E = (energy at level 3) – (energy at level 2). The energy specified is potential energy. The frequency specified in E = hf is the electron angular frequency at orbital level 3.
The radiation emitted is electromagnetic energy which comes from the electric field and magnetic field produced by the electron as it moves from level 3 to level 2.
The reverse of that process, in which an electron jumps from a lower level to a higher level, requires the absorp-tion of a quantum of EM that has the desired frequency, f, and the potential difference E. That requires EM from a hotter source since EM from a cooler source can never meet the requirements of the energy required to raise the electron to a higher energy level.
That’s why I used the ***IF*** above. If the EM lacks that energy it is simply not absorbed.
That satisfies the 2nd law, any other explanation involving a two-way transfer does not.
“Ken not trying to be snarky but you should know by now that Wiki is seriously unreliable as a source of science.”
Up to you to show where it is wrong. I’d post the information from the book I originally learned it from but it would take a lot longer to scan it and make a website for it.
Ken…”Up to you to show where it is wrong. I’d post the information from the book I originally learned it from but it would take a lot longer to scan it and make a website for it”.
***
No need to post the book, I have quoted the pertinent sections:
“Greenhouse warming of Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere is driven by radiative forcing, the difference between the flux of thermal radiant energy from a black surface through a hypothetical, transparent atmosphere, and the flux through an atmosphere with greenhouse gases, particulates and clouds, but with the same surface temperature [3, 4]. This paper examines the effect of greenhouse gas concentrations on thermal radiation for the case of a clear sky. It considers the five most important naturally occurring greenhouse gases: H2O, CO2, O3, N2O and CH4″.
***
The concept of radiative forcing does not belong in physics. It is a term from differential equation theory where a function, a forcing function, is used to drive another equation to test it. Here they are using it as the difference flux of radiant energy from a black surface with the surface flux through our atmosphere.
Note…Happer’s entire paper is about modeling, not hard physics.
In the first place, Happer uses the term ‘flux of thermal radiant energy” and there is no such thing. Thermal means heat, and the radiative energy was created through a transformation from heat in the surface to electromagnetic energy in the atmosphere.
When the EM is created the heat disappears. Happer uses the terms radiation and heat interchangeably and if he does not know better, he should not be writing on the subject.
Anyway, the first paragraph describes the basic argument between alarmists and skeptics. The former claim that a temperature derived for an Earth with no atmosphere and oceans via the Stefan-Boltzmann equation is valid. He calls it a black surface which is incorrect in itself. S-B was derived from a surface between about 500C and 1400C and that surface cannot meet the theoretical claims of a black surface, i.e blackbody.
Happer is claiming that radiative forcing is the difference in ‘flux’ between the former, an alleged blackbody, and the current situation on Earth, which is a highly theoretical situation as well. In his paper, Happer alleges that this radiative forcing is due entirely to surface radiation which is wrong. That’s where the 33C warming controversy arises.
He admits later that ‘convection of water vapour’, especially near the Equator, is equally important but he completely disregards the effect of conduction and convection related to nitrogen and oxygen, which make up 99% of the atmosphere.
In other words, Happer thinks the temperature of the atmosphere is entirely dependent on the absorp-tion and emission of gases that make up 0.31% of the entire atmosphere. As someone opposed to climate alarmists, by accepting the work of Happer, you are playing right into their hands. Happer’s theory is alarmist theory.
***
“Radiation transfer in the cloud-free atmosphere of the Earth is controlled by the temperature T = T(z) at the altitude z…”
What is radiation transfer?
There is no such thing. He means heat transfer by radiation, why does he not say that? Heat at the surface is CONVERTED to EM (radiation) then converted back to heat when absorbed by a GHG like CO2. However, near the surface, where the atmospheric gases are in thermal equilibrium with the surface, no heat can be transferred. No heat can be transfered till Tsurface > T(z).
Meantime, does that mean no heat can be transferred unless it is transferred radiatively? Heat is constantly being transferred via conduction to nitrogen and oxygen molecules in contact with the surface and that heated air rises. Remember, N2/O2 makes up 99% of the atmosphere but Happer focuses only on water vapour, as follows:
“In the troposphere, convective transport of sensible and latent heat of water vapor, especially near the equator, is as important as radiant heat transfer”.
Where is his reference to the amount of heat transported by nitrogen and oxygen via convection? If he does not account for thats heat transfer the rest of his calculations re CO2 and WV are meaningless.
A scientist who was an expert on CO2 and other gases, R.W. Wood, was consulted by Neils Bohr for his expertise on sodium vapour. Wood claimed he could not understand how such a small amount of CO2 could possibly warm the atmosphere. He thought it more likely that the heat transported by N2/O2 via convection was an explanation for greenhouse warming because once they absorb heat they cannot dissipate it via radiation. They won’t be able to lose the heat till the N2/O2 molecules reach an altitude where the pressure is so small that their molecules can expand, losing heat naturally.
You see, the original greenhouse theory claimed that trapped infrared caused a greenhouse to warm. That makes no sense at all, why should trapped IR cause warming? Heat is the kinetic energy of atoms, in the case of the atmosphere, and as Wood pointed out glass traps those molecules, allowing the heat to build up. Once you open windows and doors, the heat escapes as the heated molecules escape and rise.
Happer is trying to apply that pseudo-science using fancy equations and allegations but as physicist David Bohm remarked, any equation with no reality to back it is garbage.
***
“With increasing altitudes, radiative cooling, mainly by CO2, becomes increasingly more important compared to heating by solar ultraviolet radiation. This causes the temperature to decrease with increasing altitude in the mesosphere”.
Happer is revealing a complete lack of understanding of the Ideal Gas Law. When atoms/molecules of a gas expand in a lower pressure region, heat is automatically lost. That’s because PV = nRT. If V is constant, which it pretty well is in the atmosphere, then P = n(R/V)T.
This means P varies directly with temperature and n (number of atoms/molecules). Pressure is always proportional to the number of atoms/molecules in a container and as N -> 0, P -> 0. If P -> 0, then T -> 0.
It’s a mistake to think heat must be conserved. Heat contained in a gas that is allowed to lose pressure, simply disappears. EM radiated by the Sun that does not contact a mass, simply disappears.
It’s obvious that as altitude increases, the number of atoms/molecules decreases, causing P and T to decrease. Why does Happer not know this?
***
“The vertical radiation flux changes rapidly in the troposphere and stratosphere compared to the mesosphere where the atmospheric density is very low”.
I wonder if Happer understand this area of physics at all? Flux density related to the surface decrease exponentially with the distance from the surface. Wood calculated that the flux density after a few feet above the surface would be so low as to make the EM useless.
If you turn on the ring of an electric stove till it burns cherry-red, you cannot hold your hand over the surface too close or the radiation and heat air gases will cook your skin. If you raise your hand a foot above the ring, any radiation heats your skin minimally. Move it 4 feet above the ring and radiation won’t affect your skin at all.
That’s a 1500 watt ring. What effect would the radiation at the surface have on your hand if you held it 4 feet above the ground? None…nada…zilch.
The radiation theory of atmospheric heating due to radiation is nonsense. It is well known in mechanical engineering that radiation at terrestrial temperatures is negligible. When house builder build a home, they are mainly concerned with heat loss through the walls of a house by conduction. Radiative loss is minimal and it has only been recently that homes have been built with reflective media in the falls to reduce radiation loss.
***
“The rate of spontaneous emission of photons when the molecule makes transitions from the upper level u to the lower level l is [Tau something]”.
Nonsense. Molecules do not radiate because there are no transitions in the molecule, which is a definition, not a physical reality. Photons (I prefer quanta) are radiated only by electrons. Most people like Happer have no idea of that fact and continue to spew nonsense about molecules radiating energy.
When CO2 absorbs or radiates, it is the electrons around the atomic nucleii that radiate and absorb.
O=====C=====O
A CO2 molecule. The dashed lines are electron forming covalent bonds. They bind the O and C atoms together. The emission and absorp-tion of EM is caused by them.
***
“In cloud-free air where scattering is negligible, radiation transport is governed by the Schwarzschild equation”
Schwarzchild was an idiot. He was an Einsteinian weenie to perverted science in a major way.
Thermal doesn’t mean heat Gordon, thermal is shortened from therm-odynamic intern-al. The rest of your argument falls apart accordingly after that initial mistake.
GR: So many words. So little scientific content.
Hear, hear!
A communications engineer would call it a poor signal:noise ratio.
A communications engineer would say any signal if present is well buried in the noise floor.
Despite the communications engineer’s best efforts, any true signal remains well buried to date.
Friends of Science is looking for members and donors. Groups like this are needed so we can organize to fight the climate alarmists.
https://www.friendsofscience.org/
You have to be careful, Ken. There are a lot of blogs trying to make money off skeptics.
A good test is to ask them where NASA is wrong on AGW. If they can’t find anything wrong with NASA, then they don’t know science.
FOS did an interview with Roy Spencer 31 May 2021. You can find it on Youtube. Is that sufficient provenance for you?
Spencer has explained his position. He does not directly challenge the nonsense, because physics is not his area of expertise. He puts his expertise into tracking temperatures. He believes (correctly) that the temperatures will show no warming, due to CO2.
But, there’s a faster way to debunk the nonsense.
If FOS can only rely on Dr. Spencer, we don’t need them. We got Spencer. Send your money to UAH.
“He believes (correctly) that the temperatures will show no warming, due to CO2”
I think that his position is that the temperatures will show only some warming due to CO2.
Judging from the articles accessible from the top of the blog Dr Spencer accepts the science of the greenhouse effect and the direct effect of increased CO2 on global warming.
What he does not accept is the indirect effects, that the feedbacks will be as large as the climate scientists estimate.
He calls himself a “Lukewarmer” — any warming will be insignificant and do more good than harm.
So FOS are looking for “useful idiots”.
Historically, the term useful idiot has referred to a naive or unwitting ally of a ruthless political movement especially a communist movement. Supposedly, Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin used this expression contemptuously of non-communists who aligned themselves with their political positions.”
Nowadays the ” useful idiots” are on the Right, supporting the fossil fuel lobby in their ongoing campaign of climate change denial.
With “Friends” like these Science doesn’t need any enemies.
This site is full of debate, of enormously variable quality.
I suggest that all present read this, in hopes that the standard of debate might improve.
https://thinkingispower.com/floater-a-tool-kit-for-evaluating-claims/
Ent, would your “passenger jets flying backwards” float?
Yes, in the correct frame of reference.
Your denial rests on two FLOATER errors.
You refuse to step outside your bias and consider the problem Objectively.
You refuse to consider other Alternative frames of reference.
Ah yes, the famous “frame of reference”.
That’s a convenient tool for perverting reality. It’s akin to the claim that there is no absolute truth. Such tactics are used by cults, or anyone wanting to pervert reality.
The solution is for the braindead cult idiot to jump off a 1000 ft cliff, with no parachute. Tell him he won’t get hurt because he is not falling in some “other alternative frame of reference”.
The someone will get hurt in every frame of ref. Clint once the movement of the frame is accounted correctly but by not understanding ref. frames Clint wouldn’t know that.
Yes, Reality always wins.
But braindead cult idiots don’t know that.
” The solution is for the braindead cult idiot to jump off a 1000 ft cliff, with no parachute. Tell him he wont get hurt because he is not falling in some other alternative frame of reference. ”
That’s a Logic violation.
Whatever frame of reference you use, the damage is proportional to the difference in momentum between my falling body and the beach.
I would receive the same amount of damage if I stood on the beach and you rolled a 200kg rock off the clifftop onto my head.
Nobody died and made you KING of reality, Pup.
You’re just a silly sock puppet who can’t do the Pole Dance Experiment.
So “frame of reference” only works when you want to use it, huh Ent?
That ain’t science.
Clint R
“So frame of reference only works when you want to use it, huh Ent?”
Not at all. If you regard the beach as stationary I would hit it moving at a relative velocity of 50m/sec.
If I jumped at dawn the beach would be moving along Earth’s orbit at 30km/sec and I would be moving along the same orbit at 29.95km/sec.
The difference would still be 50m/sec and I would splatter on impact just as hard in either reference frame.
Thanks for providing more evidence of your incompetence, Ent.
Your speeds are all messed up, apparently because your physics is confused.
Instead of learning ways to pervert reality, you should be immersed in learning reality.
Thereby “messed up” Clint doubles down on not understanding frames of ref.
Braindead4, why don’t you and Willard help your cult brother out? Why don’t you correct his mistakes above?
You can’t because you know NOTHING about physics. You’re both just useless trolls.
I predict you will respond with your usual irrelevant, immature nonsense.
Nobody died and made you KING of science, Pup.
You’re just a silly sock puppet who won’t do the Poll Dance Experiment.
You responded in 8 minutes, Dud!
You may be a worthless troll, but at least you’re prompt.
The advantages of having NOTHING else in your life, huh?
Nobody died and made you king of TIME, Pup.
You’re just a silly sock puppet who can’t do the Poll Dance Experiment.
“You responded in 8 minutes, Dud!”
OK.
According to our resident parlimentarian, Clint, replying to slowly, more than a day after a post, makes you a bad person.
Now, responding too quickly ALSO makes you a bad person.
Its never about the facts, its just about trolling.
Rotation in a circle about axis has a constant velocity at its surface. Orbiting in an ellipse about a barycenter does not a constant velocity of its center of mass.
ken…”Orbiting in an ellipse about a barycenter does not a constant velocity of its center of mass”.
***
Think about it. What force is available to change the tangential velocity? People who work with equations like to sling them around, arriving at conclusions with no physical reality to back the equations.
For example s (distance) = v (velocity) x t(time)
s = vt
You can apply clever math and write that as t = s/v, but what does that mean in physical reality? Time is ‘defined’ based on the period of Earth’s rotation, therefore it must be a constant and have no physical existence. Yet, Einstein thought it was OK to write s =vt while applying a fictitious multiplier to t.
Louis Essen, inventor of the atomic clock cried ‘foul’, and I agree. You cannot take time, defined as a constant, and arbitrarily add a multiplier based on the speed of light to cause time to dilate.
Be very wary of the manipulation of equations. Try to visualize the physical forces and masses involved to see if what the equation claims is possible.
You agree that a rigid body moving in a circle has a constant velocity. What can change the velocity? Nothing but a force applied in a tangential direction. If the force is applied in any other direction, the body has to move out of its circular orbit.
Keep in mind that the body only has a momentum derived from its mass and its velocity. To change momentum, a force must be applied, there is no other way to do it.
If you do apply a force in the direction of the tangential velocity vector, it will elongate the orbit into an ellipse, and as the force is increased, at some point, the Moon will break free of its orbit and fly off into space.
The reason the Moon is in its current slightly elliptical orbit is that its momentum at capture was a bit too strong for gravity to hold it in a circular orbit.
If momentum and mass was not critical to an orbit, we’d have all sorts of debris from space orbiting the Earth.
Some people in this blog have argued that particles on the outside of the Moon’s orbit move faster than particles on the inside of the orbit. That’s true, but it has nothing to do with anything. The particles are moving at different velocities because the Moon is moving at a constant linear velocity in an elliptical path.
That is, a radial line drawn from Earth’s centre through the Moon must have a constant angular velocity in a circular orbit. Meaning, all parts of the Moon must complete an orbit in exactly the same time. That is one part of the definition of curvilinear translation. The other is that all particles must move parallel to each other, which is also the case.
Therefore, the Moon’s orbital motion is curvilinear translation WITHOUT rotation.
… in an accelerated frame.
Gordon Robertson
“The ellipse doesnt have a constant tangential velocity???? Where did Kepler ever claim anything you have written above?”
Kepler’s three laws state that:
1) The orbit of a planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the two foci.
2)A line segment joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time.
3)The square of a planet’s orbital period is proportional to the cube of the length of the semi-major axis of its orbit.
The Second Law requires that a planet at perihelion must move faster than at aphelion.
When the planet is closest to the Sun the line segment is shortest and the planet moves furthest in the time interval.
When the planet is furthest from the Sun the line segment is longest and the planet moves its shortest distance in the time interval
Think of the two situations as triangles. The positions of the line segments at the beginning and end of the time interval are the sides and the orbital distance traversed forms the base.
The perihelion triangle is shorter and has a broader base than the aphelion triangle. To traverse the perihelion base in the same time interval as the aphelion base the planet must travel faster at perihelion than at aphelion.
Modern physics also requires that a planets perihelion velocity is larger than its aphelion velocity.
1LOT requires that energy is conserved during a planet’s orbit.
At perihelion a planet has minimum potential energy and maximum kinetic energy.
As the planet rises from perihelion kinetic energy is converted to potential energy until at aphelion it has maximum potential energy and minimum kinetic energy.
KE=mv^2 / 2 . At aphelion the planet has minimum kinetic energy and minimum velocity. At perihelion it has maximum kinetic energy and maximum velocity.
entropic…”The Second Law [Kepler’s] requires that a planet at perihelion must move faster than at aphelion”.
***
I don’t see how you arrived at that conclusion. You are talking about speed, a scalar quantity of simple distance/unit time, not to tangential velocity. Consider the basic equation for scalar velocity, s = vt. Write that as…. v = s/t, where s = distance and t = time. Make v constant. If you change s then you have to adjust t to keep v constant. That is more in agreement with Kepler II than your claim.
We are not talking here about a particle or a rigid body moving along a prescribed track. The Moon is essentially moving under its own power (momentum) and that momentum is not under the influence of gravity. The direction is under the control of gravity not the tangential velocity.
You need to understand clearly that the Moon has a constant linear momentum at all time. It would rather move along a straight line but Earth’s gravitational field forces it to re-orient it’s tangential velocity vector.
I realize this is non-intuitive, but gravitational force does vary with distance. It even varies with distance within our atmosphere, allowing air molecules to be more compacted near the surface than at a higher altitude. For example, the air pressure at the top of Mount Everest, near 30,000 feet is 1/3rd the air pressure near sea level.
That’s due entirely to a weakening of gravity over 30,000 feet altitude. You can imagine then, how it varies over the much greater distances in the Moon’s orbit. Later in this missive, I have presented relative figures for that.
Furthermore, by an altitude of 2000 km, gravitational acceleration has dropped to about 6 m/s^2. I don’t like expressing gravity in the kinematic form using acceleration. As I explained in another post, acceleration is only acceptable if a mass is moving. Gravity should be expressed as a force since g varies considerably with altitude.
A relationship exists between gravity at a certain altitude compared to gravitational force at the surface…
Gh = Go(Re^2/[Re+h]^2)
Gh = gravitational acceleration at altitude h
Go = 9.98 m/s^2
Re = mean Earth radius, about 6368 km
h = altitude.
I looked up the acceleration due to gravity at 2000 km and it was just below 6 m/s^2
Using the formula above,
Gh = 9.8m/s^2([6368km]^2/[6368km + 2000 km]^2
The km^2 cancel out leaving a ratio as desired
I calculated g at 2000 km to be about 5.675 m/s^2
If it can vary that much over 2000 km it can vary a whole lot more relatively over the lunar orbit.
Therefore, with the Moon at a distance of about 384,400 km, which is nearly 200 times the 2000 km altitude just calculated, it is easy to see how much gravitational force can vary over one lunar orbital period.
If the Moon is moving at a constant tangential velocity, and the force moving it off course is varying, then the Moon can travel farther in the elliptical orbit created by ‘slightly’ varying gravity, at the same tangential velocity. It also depends on the angle gravity acts on the Moon, akin to the angle gravity acts on a ball rolling down a ramp.
Tangential momentum cannot be changed without applying a force in the opposite direction to the velocity vector, or a force in the direction of the velocity vector. Any force with enough magnitude applied in another direction, would force the Moon out of orbit.
If an opposing tangential force is great enough, the Moon will lose orbit and move toward the Earth. If an aiding tangential force is great enough, the Moon will break orbit and sail off on a parabolic or hyperbolic path, depending on the magnitude of the applied force.
The Moon’s linear momentum is the decisive component in the shape of the lunar orbit. It does not vary, it is gravity which varies, very slightly. It varies because the lunar momentum elongates the orbital path in certain parts of the orbit, changing the direction gravity operates on the Moon. That change in direction reduces the gravity vector to a component.
I described it before. Draw lines from each focal point of the ellipse to the Moon and bisect the angle formed. Of course, Earth is at the principal focal point, so the line between that focal point and the Moon is the direction that gravity acts.
BTW…an interesting point about ellipses. If you stand at one focal point and shoot a beam off a tangential surface on the ellipse, the beam will go through the other focal point.
However, the action of gravity is along the bisector, which is perpendicular to the Moon’s tangential velocity. The bisector is the same radial line one would expect if the orbit were circular and that line would always point straight at Earth’s centre.
In an ellipse, that radial line is pointed to the side of Earth’s centre therefore the action of gravity on the near face does not have the full gravitational effect. Furthermore, the bisector not pointing at Earth’s centre produces libration. W can see farther around the edge of the Moon.
This is the same as a ball rolling down a ramp with an angle of 30 degrees to the Earth’s surface. If the ball is halfway down the ramp, gravity acts from the centre of the ball in a vertical direction. However, the ramp stops the ball accelerating in that direction, forcing it to accelerate at a 30 degree angle to the gravitational force vector.
Therefore, the gravity vector is split into two components. One component acts straight into the ramp perpendicular to it. The other component acts down the ramp, accelerating the ball down the ramp. If the gravity vector is Fg and the force acting down the ramp is Fr, then Fr = Fg .(sin 30 degrees). Since sin 30 degrees = 0.5, with a 30 degree ramp, half the gravitational force acts down the ramp and half into the ramp in a perpendicular direction. Note that the force due to gravity on the ball down the ramp is only half what it would be if the ball fell vertically.
It’s the same with gravitational force acting in an ellipse. It’s not the same at all points on the ellipse. Obviously, when the Moon is on either end of the major axis, gravity is acting directly on it. However, it is stronger when the Moon is at the Earth’s side of the major axis than at the opposite end. In between, you have the same situation as a ball rolling down a ramp.
Consider the Moon at the top end of the minor axis. A line drawn between Earth centre and the lunar centre represents the gravitational force, Fg. However, Fg varies with distance, so it will be slightly less when the Moon is at that point in the orbit.
When the Moon is at the top of the minor axis, lines drawn from each focal point to the Moon are equal therefore the bisector points straight down the minor axis. That represents the gravitational force component acting on the Moon, Fr. Therefore the gravitational component acting on the Moon will be Fr = Fg .cos (theta), because the radial force component is the adjacent side to the angle theta in this case.
We don’t know the value of theta at this point but the angle will be very small and the cosine value will be close to 1. Example…cosine of 5 degrees = 0.996. There will be a component acting in the opposite direction to the Moon’s motion as well and that will be F = Fg.sin(theta), For theta = 5 degrees, it will be 0.087.
Therefore the component acting on the near face will be very close to the gravitational force and the component acting in the opposite direction to the Moon will be very small.
So many words that do not cover what Kepler concluded. That portions of an orbit have a greater or lesser radial velocity over time as measured from any one focal point.
An ellipse has 2 focal points, a circle has 1 center.
A circle has a constant radial velocity. An ellipse doesn’t.
gordo tosses out another blast of incorrect physics, displaying his ignorance yet again. ROFLMAO!!
Ken
We were discussing hurricanes. This may be of interest.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-59489559
BBC? Really? Wikipedia is much more reliable.
Did you read it?
“According to Philip Klotzbach, a hurricane specialist at Colorado State University in Fort Collins, with no major hurricane forming throughout October it was the quietest period since 1977”
RLH
Light reading on models.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/
But you and others have already said that models do not represent the actual data but instead are deliberately run ‘hot’ in order to persuade politicians that they need to curb future use of CO2.
> deliberately
Why do you keep lying, dummy?
Wasn’t that what you said?
Why else are the models so much hotter than the actual observations? See below.
See
https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/12/cmip5-model-atmospheric-warming-1979-2018-some-comparisons-to-observations/
RLH, Roy and Christy have been pushing graphical comparisons like this for several years, including during congressional testimony. My standard complaint is this: Did they modify the model results to simulate the LT or TLT, i.e., exactly what computation is applied to the model results, other than simple area averaging. Not to forget that the “reanalysis” is also a back casting modeling effort which would also need to be weighted to simulate the LT or TLT.
Dr Ross McKitrick has done similar work comparing the model projections with observations.
Further, I have yet to see anyone from the model community state their projections were modified or otherwise misrepresented.
ES: Unless you have proof otherwise I think we can assume that the results are as stated as I quoted.
Ken,RLH
I bow to your superior expertise as conspiracy theorists.
If you examine the fourth graph in the Realclimate link. The modellers admit that they took advantage of Moore’s Law to rerun the 2005 models with extra observed data up to 2011.
Starting from 2011 the projections to date are closer to observation than the earlier runs.
Please explain why the global climate change conspiracy modified the CMIP5 projections to REDUCE the forecast rate of warming.
I am not a conspiracy theorist.
https://www.realclimate.org/images//cmp_cmip5_tmt.png
“their projections were modified or otherwise misrepresented”
Their projections were not supported by the measurements.
RLH, You “quoted” only one source and did not question the methods used to produce the graph. And, do you have a source for our claim that the models were “deliberately run ‘hot’” for some political reason or is that conclusion just another example of your bias?
ES: Do you have any actual evidence that the graph is incorrect?
RLH, RealClimate did a couple of articles on the subject, sorry, no link. There have been studies which included most of the “NOT UAH” crowd that have shown less of a difference. HERE’s ONE from 2013. They noted that:
Another problem is that the so-called “102 climate models” are composed of several cases with ensemble runs of the same model, intended to bracket the possible change. There are also several emissions profiles in the mix, as I recall. All those squiggly lines might not mean what you think.
RLH, FYI, here’s another recent report from the NOT UAH group:
Using Climate Model Simulations to Constrain Observations (2021)
RLH, FYI, here’s another recent report from the NOT UAH group:
Using Climate Model Simulations to Constrain Observations (2021)
“Ratios between moisture and temperature changes calculated with the UAH and HadISST datasets, which both have muted tropical warming over 19882019, are at least 10 standard deviations removed from model expectations (Fig. 11).”
Therefore the measurements must be wrong and the models correct.
See you in a few:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/climate-model-projections-compared-to-observations/
Well there’s a surprise. Someone who supports the models as being correct says the models are correct.
There are others who claim something different, such as those who provided data for this blog.
How do I forecast global temperature in 2040 using actual data?
I have no time machine to collect actual data from the period between 2022 and 2040.
“How do I forecast global temperature in 2040 using actual data?”
Use the models that have been proven to run hot.
ball4…RLH….birds of a feather, with ball4 more of a dodo bird. RLH is more of a parrot…poly want a cracker?
Ball4 says:” Thermal doesnt mean heat Gordon, thermal is shortened from therm-odynamic intern-al. The rest of your argument falls apart accordingly after that initial mistake.
***
According to you, heat is a measure of energy transfer where the energy transferred is heat. Ergo, you think heat is a measure of heat. Someone with a mind like yours is not qualified to comment on the rest of my post.
For anyone interested, Merriam-Webster defines thermal as:
“of, relating to, or caused by heat”
*********************
RLH says: …”GR: So many words. So little scientific content”.
***
How would someone who responds with only ad homs and one-liners with absolutely no scientific comment be qualified to talk about the content of my post?
You’re too old for this game, Richard, find yourself a nice rest home where you can learn to knit.
Not that your reply is anything other than an ad hom.
Gordon 12:52 am, of course you have shown using Meriam-Webster def. that your own written 12:49 am statement is not credible: “Thermal means heat”. Thus your whole comment falls apart.
Thermodynamic internal energy is: “of, relating to, or caused by heat”.
Heat is a measure of the total KE of an object’s constituent molecules.
Temperature is a measure of the avg. KE of an object’s constituent molecules at the measurement site.
“The blackbody temperature — is the same no matter how fast you spin the planet. It doesn’t change with spin.”
That is why the planet blackbody temperature Te is a mathematical abstraction!
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
Te is satellite radiometer instrumentally measured Christos; Te is not just an abstraction. Tse is also instrumentally measured.
Thus the earthen GHE has been instrumentally measured at:
Tse – Te = 288K – 255K = 33K
I was not at home for a long while, and unluckily overlooked that KNMI’s designer and engineer Geert van Oldenborgh died lat October.
What a shame to lose such a great guy. That makes me sad.
Testing
Европа поражена! Рекордные снегопады в Австрии и Германии
TM, the issue is NOT about science. If it were, it would have been trashed years ago. The issue is about agenda.
If it were about science, why do you see cult idiots claiming there is a “real 255K surface”, when there is none. Why do you have cult idiots claiming ice cubes can warm something hotter than the ice?
You belong to all those “clubs” that are anti-science. You need to start thinking for yourself, and facing reality.
Clint R admits still hasn’t done the relevant, reliable study & work to understand the instrumentally measured earthen 255K.
Yes, Clint R is nothing but a troll who seems to average 13-17 comments a day depending on whether he’s taken his medication.
I’ll admit though, his low brow comedy routine is funny as hell.
TM, where’s your solution to the vectors problem?
You’re a member of all those clubs but you can’t solve a simple physics problem?
you are funny!
Is that it, TM? Is that all you’ve got?
You belong to all those “clubs”, believing that makes you knowledgeable, but yet you’ve got NOTHING.
you are hilarious!
Planet…….. Te…………Tsat……Rot/day
Ιο………….95,16 K…..110 K….0,5559
Calisto….114,66 K…134±11 K…0,0599
Enceladus…55,97 K…75 K……0,7299
Tethys………66,55 K…..86 ± 1 K….0,52971
Titan………..84,52 K…..93,7 K……0,06289
1).Triton..(Φ=1)..35,4 K…38 K…..0,17021
2).Triton..(Φ=0,47) .29,29 K .38 K..0,17021
Pluto………..37 K…………44 K…..0,1565
Charon…… 41,90 K…….53 K……0,1565
We see that for the rest of the planets and moons WITHOUT-ATMOSPHERE the theoretical blackbody temperature Te is also smaller than the satellite measured mean surface temperature Tsat.
Te < Tsat
https://www.cristos-vournas.com
December 2, 2021 12:30 EST post count for posters with 20 or more comments:
Clint R : 416
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team : 389
RLH : 373
Willard : 288
Ball4 : 224
Gordon Robertson : 202
bobdroege : 160
Tim Folkerts : 128
Entropic man : 117
Ken : 113
Bindidon : 98
TYSON MCGUFFIN : 94
Swenson : 91
gbaikie : 81
Nate : 81
Norman : 79
E. Swanson : 73
Christos Vournas : 62
stephen p anderson : 51
Ireneusz Palmowski : 44
Eben : 39
Craig T : 36
Mark B
Thank you.
Skeptics have a hard time neutralizing the nonsense from the braindead cult idiots. We’ll just have to work harder….
Skeptics
Clint R : 416
Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team : 389
Gordon Robertson : 202
Ken : 113
Swenson : 91
gbaikie : 81
Christos Vournas : 62
stephen p anderson : 51
Ireneusz Palmowski : 44
Eben : 39
Total — 1488
Braindead Cult Idiots
RLH : 373
Willard : 288
Ball4 : 224
bobdroege : 160
Tim Folkerts : 128
Entropic man : 117
Bindidon : 98
TYSON MCGUFFIN : 94
Nate : 81
Norman : 79
E. Swanson : 73
Craig T : 36
Total — 1751
willard…”Willard : 288″
***
288 too many.
C’mon, Gordo.
Think.
Number of comments so far: 3,372
Comments from our Dragon Crank Tag Team: 1,211
A bit shy of 36% of the comments.
Well played!
maguff…”contrarians must show why the scientific basis of greenhouse gas warming is incorrect”.
***
Scientifically backwards. The greenhouse theory has never been proved, no need to disprove it. However, we have disproved it ad nauseum in this blog without an adequate rebuttal from alarmists.
Earthen GHE has been measured as the theory predicts Gordon, you just haven’t read and understood the basic physics of climate.
Here is an abridged (a mere 3,949 pages) progress report on the greenhouse gas warming experiment currently underway, complete with a few thousand references: https://tinyurl.com/Greenhouse-gas-warming
Enough said.
TM, if you knew anything about science you would throw away that nonsense at the first page of text. They claim CO2 is increasing because of humans, not realizing the natural warming trend increases CO2.
Your beliefs are crumbling with your cult.
Find some more links you don’t understand. You’re as much fun as Norman.
ha ha ha, you are so funny!
It’s a great time to be an Energy Engineer.
Ocean Terrain and the Engineering Challenges for Offshore Wind Farms
Another big issue has been NIMBY from wealthy inhabitants with Beachfront properties..
Apk Open Slot adalah apk yang menyunsung kemenangan 100% akurat
di di dalam game slot online. Di mana apk tersebeut merupakan updata an apk yang mana lebih akurat
dan lebih joss di di dalam bermain slot online.
test
RLH
1. ” No statistics textbooks say that a mean is preferred over a median on skewed, bimodal data. ”
No one – I repeat: NO ONE did ever say or write that – me the least.
The contrary is the case: YOU were last year the one who discredited the mean – here: (tmin+tmax)/2 – as a wrong approach for daily temperature averages.
You were even brazen enough to claim – as usual, without any proof – that using that daily temperature average would be responsible for unduly high temperature estimates since the beginning of temperature measurements.
I’m sure you will find back to your own comment.
I gave you many proofs of how wrong you are to ideologically put the median as the only correct method.
My first proof was using data from the German Weather Services: mean, median and average were nearly identical in shape and trend for Germany.
You never were able to contradict that, even not as you decided to switch to USCRN data.
*
2. I wrote:
“RLH never processed any data else than USCRN”
and you answered:
” Liar. See my website. ”
*
It took me a while to inspect your endless, tedious repetitions of the same stuff, month after month.
To be quite sure I wouldn’t have overlooked anything you might have made of your own, I went down to your very first post in the blog:
A Mathematical Tool for examining Temperature data
Feb 19, 2014
The conclusion is absolutely clear: apart from some little work on USCRN, not ONE chart shows any hint on own data processing.
All other charts – especially those showing UAH data (LT, MT, TP, LS layers), but also any other one showing AMO, PDO, ENSO or whatever – are based on existing data which you superposed with some simple low pass filter stuff coming from some spreadsheet calculator (Excel, Libre Office Calc or so).
Nothing is of your own.
You manifestly NEVER did process any data from any raw source.
What I understand with own processing you can see below.
– UAH 6.0 LT time series with absolute data, reconstructed out of UAH’s anomalies and climatology:
https://i.postimg.cc/PxZ71c5n/UAH-6-0-LT-reconstructed-absolute-data.png
– UAH time series constructed years ago out of a small subset of the entire grid, compared with the original data
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ij_jKmyrBJOMUdwtRP6NYqyGXibNPnRb/view
*
Me, a liar? Certainly not.
You, a liar? Certainly well.
*
I see that Brandon R. Gates also is – as opposed to you – a real professional person who knows what he is talking about.
You are only boasting all the time, and keep intentionally distorting what I do, see for example this incredibly dumb discussion about Mollweide projections versus my displaying of rectangular grids you discredit as Mercator projections.
And what a liar you really are became visible to me when going back upthread, till I saw your woeful answer to Tim Folkerts in a discussion:
*
RLH says:
April 7, 2022 at 3:34 PM
“The main goal in Bins work (the it) seem to be creating an accurate time series”
Blinny doesnt create anything. Those are Roys figures that he just plots on a rectangular grid.
You need to understand that the areas that each of his pixels covers is like comparing Greenland with Africa.
*
Apart form the fact that you last sentence couldn’t be more irrelevant, as everybody knows that Greenland is far smaller than Africa, your (bold emphasized) lie is evident: no one has access to the data Mr Spencer uses to display data (monthly anomalies, long-time trends) in Mollweide form.
What I do is the same as what the UAH team does:
– to compute the linear trend of each of the 9504 grid cells;
– to display them in a simple, easy-to-produce, easy-to-read rectangular form.
*
You, RLH, were until now absolutely unable to process UAH’s raw grid data, like did Mr Z., Mark B and I.
Let alone would you have been able to process sea ice extent data out of HadISST1 ICE data, or to generate a global sea level time series out of PSMSL and SONEL data, etc etc etc etc.
*
It’s hard to imagine you as a former engineer. You rather behave like a mix of a bad teacher and an opinionated polemicist.
The Temperature also depends on the orbital of the earth and sun. Sun is considered to its due to lots of radiation rising from the sun like UV which is harmful to our body skin also it rising day by day.